Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 19 20

Original poster

To want MNHQ to get rid of the link to 'I want great care'?

486 replies

sallysparrow157 · 02/09/2011 13:11

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.

OP posts:

TidyDancer · 02/09/2011 18:54

I don't like this association one bit.

Excellent point, Chaos, and yes I do remember that, as I'm sure many others do.

Very very bad decision on this, MN. Know your audience.

MinimallyNarkyPuffin · 02/09/2011 18:55

How much MNHQ?

HerdOfTinyElephants · 02/09/2011 18:57

But how can doctors respond meaningfully? As MinimallyNarkyPuffin says, they aren't really in a position to say "you have mental health issues and feel persecuted, so the consultation you described was bollocks". Or "The reason I wouldn't give your son a repeat prescription of cocodamol is that I suspect he is becoming addicted".

ChaosTrulyReigns · 02/09/2011 18:57

Erm, yup, Helen, kind of my point.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 02/09/2011 18:57

@MinimallyNarkyPuffin

'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?

No, they want people to post reviews - because they think other people will value their peers' opinions.

In the same way as we ask you (if you'd like to) to add reviews to our Reviews section. We hope you don't think we're being lazy by not writing all the Mumsnet Reviews ourselves

TidyDancer · 02/09/2011 18:59

Helen, if the response to this is overwhelmingly negative, will you end the partnership? Can't see any support for this tbh.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 02/09/2011 19:00

@ChaosTrulyReigns

Erm, yup, Helen, kind of my point.

Not sure I follow, Chaos. Here is Justine's summary of the Macdonalds thang (from this thread

Hello as posted on the original thread on March 7th:
"We have traditionally said no to McD's because we've had this discussion periodically and over the years quite a lot of folks have objected because they felt McD's buying policies, in particular, have been unethical (The Fast Food Nation critique). Last time we we had this discussion - maybe a 2 or 3 years ago - the reaction was around 50-50. We asked again this time because there is some suggestion that McD's are getting their act together on this issue a bit (although we don't claim to be experts). And indeed it seems that analysing the response on this thread (and the other one in AIBU) it does seem that the "don't minds" now outnumber the "do minds" by some way. So we are of a mind to change our policy on McD's.

We will update the About Us page to reflect this shortly."

I realise some folks will be disappointed but the majority who responded didn't think we should boycott McDonalds, and we tend to agree that to do so isn't particularly consistent or fair. As it happens they haven't decided to advertise with us as yet - guess they must have gone to Netmums

TheRealMBJ · 02/09/2011 19:05

I think Chaos is pointing out that you did ask us what we though about McDonalds.

Anyway, I feel that they are wanting members of the public to create the database for them as they do not have all practising doctors or all hospitals in their system but expect MNetters to be adding their own

ChaosTrulyReigns · 02/09/2011 19:07

at Netmums.

I think what I'm trying to say very badly is that you knew your audience well enough in that scenario to canvass opinion, but did not throw iWGC out to the board. I thought that that seemed strange.

catsareevil · 02/09/2011 19:07

"No, they want people to post reviews - because they think other people will value their peers' opinions."

It has already been said that they want people to contact them to correct inaccuracies, and to give details of doctors who are missing from the site.

I realise that mumsnet is a business also, but you do have a certain amount of credibility and good will from your membership. I think that this 'partnership' is badly misjudged, and will be harmful to your image.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 02/09/2011 19:08

@TheRealMBJ

I think Chaos is pointing out that you did ask us what we though about McDonalds.

Oh I see re Chaos

It's been a long day and I need [cuppa] or even ...

TheRealMBJ · 02/09/2011 19:08

Oops posted too soon.

Not only that but they aren't doing basic fact checks (from what I understand) as to whether the rated doctor is even alive any longer never mindstill practising.

It seems like an effort to do spend the minimum amount of money while getting mums to create the product (database) for them for free

HerdOfTinyElephants · 02/09/2011 19:08

I think what Chaos is saying is that when you were considering the possibility of hypothetically accepting Macdonalds ads at some unspecified point in the future you carried out a consultation, but that when you were considering tying yourselves contractually to IWGC as a heavily-trailed "partnership" you didn't mention it until after it was a done deal, and that this reflects an interesting contrast in attitude.

worraliberty · 02/09/2011 19:15

I don't see the fuss really

There are tons of companies out there who expect the general public to do their research/compile statistics for them for free...and why not if people are happy to do it?

I'm a miserable sod...I won't even fill in a quick questionnaire and I run a mile from the survey people in town.

But no-one's being forced to take part in this are they?

dahu · 02/09/2011 19:27

YANBU, a tacky site that will never be used as an effective means of selecting and accessing healthcare in Britain. People will more readily repeat and pass on their experience of poor or inadequate service. The site will never be able to offer a balanced view of an individual or care in one area.
As another poster said many of the users of mumsnet who have accessed the site through mn link were just checking nothing was written about anyone they knew, I clicked on it but I would not use it to find a doctor.
Really poor choice mumsnet.

Tee2072 · 02/09/2011 19:27

Helen, the difference between MN reviews and this doctor site is that the reviews section is only one part of MN. If all MN was, was reviews then, yes, I would expect MN to review everything themselves.

Lilyloo · 02/09/2011 19:31

The more i think about this the more bizarre it seems. Why would you take someones opinion on their doctor when your own is likely to be very different ? In my doctors we struggle to get an apt with any doctor and it's not very often i see my named doctor. You don't really shop around for a doctor do you ?

Alibabaandthe80nappies · 02/09/2011 19:38

And reviewing a pushchair that you've bought, is a rather different thing to reviewing your doctor's performance.

Mothercare can respond to a poor review and say 'actually you are wrong, the pushchair will do X you just weren't using it properly' or 'thanks for bringing this to our attention, we will issue a product recall', or any number of other responses.

How on earth is a Dr to respond without breeching confidentiality?

Poor decision MN.

caramelwaffle · 02/09/2011 19:39

Bleeeuurggghh!

You made me notice the advert was actually there!

Bleeeeeeuuuurgggh!

Alibabaandthe80nappies · 02/09/2011 19:40

Tee - good point. If MN was a review site then I would expect them to review themselves.

Which is what Good Housekeeping and Which? do.

NellieForbush · 02/09/2011 19:45

How could the site review thousands of Drs? We're not talking about a dozen different buggies here. This is more along the model of tripadvisor which relies on the sites users for reviews and updates.

NorkyButNice · 02/09/2011 19:49

I thought this site sounded an appalling idea when I first noticed the advert. Hadn't realised MN was in bed with them though - that's very disappointing to hear.

DamnYouAutocorrect · 02/09/2011 19:56

I don't know anything about this site; obviously if they don't correct inaccuracies or respond to people's complaints, then that's a bit rubbish. BUT I do think some of you are just railing against the very concept of the www, really. One thing the web has enabled is anonymous reviews/complaints - every single profession, or company with a public profile, just has to suck this up (look at what gets written about Mumsnet, a lot of it is completely barking). Most sensible people take internet review sites with a hefty pinch of salt/

Also, there is a law of defamation in this country. Any HCP who feels that IWGC has defamed them does have recourse in law.

LineRunner · 02/09/2011 20:04

DamnYou, I guess you haven't ever been defamed on a website, then? Have you go ANY idea how hard it is to deal with internet defamation? Even if providers take material down, it has usually been cached or reproduced elsewhere, and the damage done.

To sue is massively expensive. It's normal to need £20k up front just to start, and the people you sue have to be the right people (which is difficult to identify in cyberspace) and they have to be worth suing i.e. have some assets.

Shallishanti · 02/09/2011 20:07

to respond to the OP (as I haven't read the whole thread) - I agree, this site looks at best unhelpful and at worst harmful, both to patients and to doctors- I don't think MN should be promoting it. I don't think Drs/HCPs should have to waste time worrying about this kind of thing, or resorting to law- they have procedures for dealing with complaints

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 19 20