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.

@MinimallyNarkyPuffin

How much MNHQ?

Frankly, nowt, MinimallyNarkyPuffin.

There is nothing financial between both parties.

The aim is to simply build the database of reviews.

All Mumsnet gets from it is page impressions, as all search results appear on our pages.

And if HCPs have to turn to the law to get totally spurious reviews taken down? Who pays? The NHS. Which has no money, and so that diverts funds from patient care.

What a fabulous idea

LineRunner - no, I don't think I have . But I do know that any reputable online site takes defamation suits extremely seriously, and usually rushes to take information down LONG before a proper suit is launched unless they're prepared to fight the case in court (defending libel is just as expensive as suing for it).

If people have concrete examples of IWGC allowing defamatory material to stand unchallenged then that would be very bad IMO.

Ali - again, I dunno anything about IWGC or how they work. but if they are like most internet companies, no HCP would have to spend anybody's money pursuing a libel suit. most sites respond to a simple letter or email, and delete or edit the material very quickly.

This kind of site would only work for private healthcare, and even then only in a very limited way, for very simple proceedures and illnesses, and runs a huge risk of becoming a list of rants.

So, basically, with a linkup with this site, you are saying that a lot of mumsnet is made up of ranty, simplistic, rich and bored people. Way to conform to a streotype there MN.

I use medical services a lot. I have never been offered a choice of doctors when it matters - maybe a choice of units for childbirth, but you get which doctor is on duty. I chose my GP practise, but the NHS choices review just says that they never answer the phone.

It makes literally no sense.

Was the website invented abroud, by any chnce?

Oh god, I wish you hadn't posted this, in a way. I agree the site is a pernicious nonsense, and I'm disappointed that mumsnet took their pieces of silver. But I clicked on it in a panic to see if I'd been slagged off, thus increasing their traffic. The site is rubbish, there are only 5 of 180 consultants in my specialty in London named, of whom 1 retired prior to the date of the apparent review . I have known fabulous caring doctors being terribly slandared with no right to reply because of their duty of patient confidentiality. Which is why I think Mumsnet should think again.

Going against the tide, I think the site could be useful. Particularly for people using private healthcare where there is a large degree of patient choice (something we keep being promised on the NHS). We have online review sites for restaurants, holidays, electrical goods, plumbers/carpenters/handymen. Why not doctors? When I used to live in Belgium, everyone worked on personal recommendations. The system is different. The GP is not always the first port of call. If you know you need to see a urologist, you ask around for recommendations for a urologist that might suit you. I work in a US firm now and see the same thing happening in my firm. Emails come round asking for recommendations for an ob/gynae or whatever in such and such an area.

So in theory I think it could be a good idea. I don't object to MN associating with it. The difficulty is stopping it being abused as with the psychiatry example someone posted way up the thread.

I also have run multiple searches, and therefore increased their traffic, to check for people I know and I also to see what was written about my own GP. Apart from the fact that there are at least 5 doctors on there that I know are retired, nothing bad was written about anyone I know or my own GP I am pleased to say.

If they want a decent database then they should buy one. Cheapskates.

Crikey, what a piece of nonsense. Also had to check that I am not, nor any of my fellow collegues, on there.Cannot believe mumsnet is supporting this - it is typical daily mail 'doctors are scum bilge'. I am really surprised they are associating with such a website. Everyone is under enough pressure working for the NHS - worrying about being slated online is just another added concern.

In full agreement with everyone else. It's an appalling site with no right to reply for the unfairly accused. I would love to know what these "robust systems" are that will stop untrue or libelous reviews but we asked on doctors.net when iWGC was set up and weren't told then either.

For whoever mentioned DNUK - iWGC is universally detested there too.

There is no way to get your details removed aside from contacting them to request it and as far as I know they haven't honoured any such requests to date.

Thank you Helen. I'm glad that MN's not getting paid for it. Which would mean that it is no financial loss to MN should you choose to drop the advert/link.

The problem DYA, is that a lot of subjective comments wouldn't be covered by libel but would constitute an attack on a doctor's reputation. If someone posts that they 'don't feel the doctor listened to them' that's actually a huge slur on the professionalism of the doctor. Not listening could lead to missed symptoms, misdiagnosis etc. It's not something the website would pull though. And the doctor can't post that yes, they listened to the patient's concerns, but it's highly unlikely that they contracted dengue fever in Crewe, because it would breach confidentiality.

Totally agree with the OP.
Doctors have a hard enough job dealing with some patients, usually the demanding ones who have checked their symptoms with Dr. Google and come up with something terminal when they have a verruca, or similar. These are the ones who are most likely to post a review, obviously negative, when the GP refused to refer them onto an oncologist for their verruca (which turns out to be a verruca).

My Dad is currently helping a lady who wishes to make a complaint against her medical care people, GP and consultants - she feels she has not been treated correctly and has been denied proper care. She has been googling avidly. Dad is not a legal person, nor a medical one - he is just a friend who writes good letters, so she has asked him to make sense of her info and write a good letter (no breach of confidentiality in him talking to me about it). From what info he has been given, the doctors gave the lady in question a valid diagnosis from the start, suggested a direction of help, which she ignored because she was sure she needed an MRI. She has now suffered for several years, has seen appropriate consultants, who have explained to her that she does not have what she thinks she might.
I can just see her being the sort of person who would go onto that site and slate all her doctors - but in fact, she is the one who is in the wrong.

And that is the problem with the site.
(as well as all the inaccurate entries).

I would be happy for MN to propose building its own database as they know who we all are in RL, and if they would moderate comments and take responsibility for the board.

This weird 'partnership' with IWGC is a Very Bad Idea.

I have just had a look on their webiste - no doctors I have seen either at the hospital or GP surgery seem to be listed on there, although their search facility appears to be absolutely hopeless and very unfriendly for people to use.

The NHS website already have a facility where you can rate your GP practice or hospital so I fail to see how this in any way is better tbh.

I also very much doubt that doctors particularly have the time to be reading anonymous reviews on some website and responding to them on top of everything they do. As other posters have pointed out there are plenty of processed in place already for compaints/feedback in a managed environment.

You can't possibly refer to this site as a database! At best it can only be a collection of self-selected and biased views. Most people who are happy with a doctor will not post on it so how can it possibly be used to form a view of them?

Surely they don't plan to conduct a representative survey somehow?

This whole idea is nonsense.

I've been hanging about Mumsnet, posting occasionally, for the last three and a half years since my son was born. I've recommended the site to a lot of friends, as well as patients. I'm a psychiatrist. I am not listed on IWGC (yet! although this doesn't appear to be up to me) and am very relieved about this. If someone posted something about me on there, I'm not sure how I would be able to "respond" considering I can't even confirm whether or not someone is my patient, let alone the details of the consultation I had with them. As Mumsnet is now in partnership with IWGC, I will no longer be using Mumsnet, nor will I recommend it to anyone else (especially my patients!)

BarryKent Intensivists are listed, under 'Anaesthetics and ITU' - as most intensivists start out as anaesthetists.

Just checked (increasing their traffic, grrrr) and I am not listed :)

What purpose does rating a pathologist serve? Or an anaesthetist? Or a radiologist? You don't get to choose who looks at your smear, or who gives the anaesthetic, or reports on your Xray - that's all down to who is rostered on on which day.

GP yes you can choose but most people go to the closest and see whoever's got a free slot. Hospital referrals again you can request a hospital and surgeon but also again, people like to go locally where possible to whoever gas the shortest waiting list. You can't choose which junior doc sees you in clinic, they all rotate round. So what purpose does this site serve aside from generating its creator some advertising income?

The one link posted by mnet 'in response' to a complaint surely crosses lot's of boundaries of confidentiality. Both the doctor and patient go into detail about their consultation. If you posted a review surely it would be against procedure for a doctor to come on and go into more detail about their consultation ? ( yet there only chance of defending themselves)

YABU. Are you also against Wikipedia?

Hideous site, MN am really shocked!
Of course the drs cannot respond, no doctors will respond to a complaint/abuse publicly, because there really is no way to do so without breaching patient confidentiality, which no dr will do.
So MN, in all the many years I have been here, I have never flounced, but now I am well and truly off. Tara.

wellwisher, you've just compared apples to zebras. Well done.

What has wikipedia got to do with it? They police their site, libel isn't allowed! If they think a segment is inaccurate, it is flagged! This pileoshite site, IWGC, is just a flogging post for doctors.

I was equally alarmed by the appearance of the "green box", but didn't quite realise that it was a MN "associate". I also didn't click on it until I saw this thread, but now I have I am truly disgusted by it.

My lovely, lovely GP of nearly 20 years has always been the soul of kindness to us, seeing me through the births of my kids with very personal attention and looking after all of us to the very best of his ability at all times.

He did once struggle to make a diagnosis, and a more difficult situation resulted from that. If a website had been around to rate him at that moment I might well have given him a lousy review, but within a couple of weeks it was totally clear that he could not possibly have made the diagnosis, or foreseen the consequences.

The thought of him being slated on that site by anyone, let alone some of the stroppy, ungrateful and appallingly demanding patients I see shouting at the receptionists in our surgery, is just a horror movie.

Someone mentioned "Rate My Teacher" - that is bad enough as it is, but the thought of that being replicated for dedicated, highly trained medical professionals makes my blood run cold.

I don't work in medicine and I never have, but that site is a total disservice to so many people - patients and medical professionals alike. Get rid, MN.