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.

Only 3 positive reactions so far compared with 5 pages against and 2 people leaving Mumsnet. If I was paying for Mumsnet I would be off as well.

Hmmm... I think you are being VU and applaud Mumsnet for supporting such a brave venture to drag the British medical profession into the clear light of accountability and patient assessment befitting the 21st century.

I wanted to launch a venture similar to this myself, though a touch more pointed, called 'Shop Your Doc' but was unable to due to my own health problems.

Yes, it's probably a far from perfect solution but I think it's addressing an even less perfect problem. I for one shall be entering the details of the sorry individuals who over my past 13 years of severe chronic illness have led me to trust your average NHS medic less distance than I can shit.

Hopefully this will start to go some way to addressing the systemic problems that lead British Doctors to be renowned for their patronising, bullying, dismissive and arrogant attitude through out the world.

I hope that there are many fine and compassionate doctors within the NHS but I've yet to bump into any of them. I've had to look further afield to find a doctor conversant with up to date international practice and a willingness do discuss and explore medication and treatment in a way that actually acknowledged the validity of my own experiences of my illness.

So, yes I do want great care, and hopefully this venture may be part of the start of the possibility of that occurring with greater frequency within our state medical provider.

I think Mumsnet needs to take a better look at who it is aiming for as users. I feel that this is not right! Please don't make me go to nm's

Agree with all the outrage 100%

MNHQ you have screwed up.

Surely the link MN have given to the example of a doctor responding actually proves everything people have been saying. The person complaining is clearly ignorant of all the facts and just lashing out (anonymously, let's remember - they get to bitch and moan without having to reveal their identity), and the doctor, in responding, comes very close to revealing too much information about a patient. In this instance she is lucky to be able to talk about a condition already referred to in the complaint, but if the complaint had merely said "you missed a diagnosis someone else had already made", the doctor could not have mentioned a heart murmur without breaching patient confidentiality and therefore would have been unable to explain that it is something which comes and goes.

Terrible idea, and it should be shut down. Or we should start up a "rate a shit website" site, and start with this one.

Alibaand... wrote "expect them to review themselves. ... what ... Which? do."

I thought a high proportion of Which? reports were based on member input.

In the past they certainly did, while using their own labs to do certain testing. It led to very 'skewed' results where there may have been thousands of members using one product or service and dozens using another... the results needed to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

However, much may have changed at the Consumers Assoc, because I now see that companies are happy to use 'recommended' stickers with "Which?" shown on them, something which the CA used to bar from being done. Of course this is open to misuse, because a business (Asda, for example) may have been chosen as "best value" in 2010 (for their own Mobile tariff) but have now changed the charges, yet still show this 2010 "award" on their SIM packs. (I will be submitting a complaint to Asda in the first instance, then CA if Asda don't respond.)

A further aspect about "reviews sites" is that motivation is often much higher to use such a site when one has a complaint, rather than to submit praise.

In this case, I think MNHQ should immediately remove the form and any mention of this other website. It is not problem, financially, as there is no income from this link, but to continue would probably do MN more harm than good, given the potential for this other site to come under criticism on a number of levels, for unfairness to the medical profession, especially if accuracy of the data is in question (as has been commented on).

"they aren't really in a position" (to comment / defend themselves)

agreed - none of the doctors or others who might be badmouthed would be in a position to openly discuss a decision made about a patient's healthcare, on privacy grounds, and not only would the ICO come down on them like a ton of bricks, but their Health Authority and professional bodies, could, too, so they may be blacklisted from working again in the UK.

Naoko wrote "It's the only ad on MN that's not picked up by my browser's adblocker by default, giving it even more of an air of legitimacy."

You could 'hide' it permanently if you alter your hosts file (can explain more to anyone if they bring this up in geeky_stuff or via a personal message) to add a line:

127.0.0.1 mumsnet.iwantgreatcare.org

That line in the hosts file makes your browser look on your own PC (rather than collect the content from that other site, and will cause no 'hit' to be made on the site, and just leave some white space on your browser view).

I was largely in agreement with the OP but having googled Dr Neil Bacon, I am entirely in agreement. Really dodgy and not someone I want to be associated with. MN, this is a total fuck up

snorkeler, its exactly because of loons like you that this website is a crap idea. I wonder if you would share what terrible illness you have, whether it is actually medically recognised, and whether the wonderful "spcialist" you saw was actually a recognised mainstream professional or a crackpot who was just pandering to your wants.

I agree with the disquiet over this - the comparisons to trip advisor, buggy reviews etc are completely false. Tripadvisor reviews hotels - it's their JOB to do what their guests want and if they're not meeting customer demand, to alter their service. That's what makes them a good hotel.

Doctors are not hotels. They should not be altering their prescriptions or diagnoses because of website pressure. In addition, as everyone else has said, they can't possibly respond because of patient confidentiality. The patient has more or less carte blanche to say what they like, where the doctor can't reveal any details at all.

Can you imagine if you had "rate my social worker" for eg?

Maybe there's a place for this website reviewing surgeries as a whole - but not individual named doctors IMO. And I don't feel comfortable with MNHQ effectively endorsing it.

Agree with OP. I don't think medical care is something that can be rated as a percentage (and as NetworkGuy) points out, results can be totally skewed.

This could end up being nothing more than a platform for pissed off patients to vent - and they'd be better off complaining to PALS etc if they have real issues to raise.

Would MNHQ allow a talk thread which named a doctor, saying they give shit care and potentially libelling them remain active or would they delete it if reported?

NetworkGuy - Which? do use member input, but they also do their own tests etc. If you are looking at something on the website it is very clear which is which!

We don't have the sort of healthcare in the UK where this sort of thing is necessary or appropriate.

Bad decision Mumsnet.

I'm afraid MN only seems to care about the money now kerchiiiing !

The guy who set up the site appears to have issues with truth telling.

Was there no attempt to check his background before going into a mutual back scratching exercise with him ?

trusted.md/feed/items/system/2008/07/16/dr_neil_bacon_is_a_junior_hospital_doctor_not_a_specialist

As a doctor I was quite offended by this too. I searched for myself and colleagues to see what garbage had been written about us.

DamnYou... wrote "think some of you are just railing against the very concept of the www, really."

I think there are plenty of (understandable) negative comments about the other site, but the major concern, I suspect (and when I see a comment like "As Mumsnet is now in partnership with IWGC, I will no longer be using Mumsnet, nor will I recommend it" showing the strength of feeling) is that of association between MN and the other site.

It's the "In partnership with iWantGreatCare" bit that annoys.

iWGC gains credibility from this (until one sees a 'review' is about someone who has retired / died /etc) while Mumsnet will in future be 'tarred' by the association if anything bad is reported about iWGC

Seems a weird site as everyone has a differing opinion as to what they expect re life so how can it be a true representation and agree that due to confidentiality it would be nigh on impossible for Doctors and other HCP's to respond properly.

MN you have screwed up. 100% agree with the contempt for this website, it is poisonous and inappropriate. My relationship with MN was growing cool, but it is now pretty well stone cold.

I hadn't noticed this until I read this thread and had a browse through. It really is pointless from an NHS perspective isn't it? Perhaps if you were selecting a private practitioner, but even so, internet reviews are dodgy at best and shouldn't form the basis of such a decision!

Thanks Alibaand...

"they also do their own tests etc." - which I acknowledged

"If you are looking at something on the website it is very clear"

Has been several years since I have been a member... I think my membership lasted around 20 years and then they requested a quadrupling of the quarterly subscription fee (and I felt they were repeating their reports on products about every 3 years with limited additional information, and as a non-driver, felt they should have banished the car reviews from the main magazine since they were charging for a separate motoring issue too).

IfoundmyGspop Helen as already said there is no money involved. I agree it's a bad move but let's not tar MNHQ with a greed brush.

Tee2072 You don't ned cold hard cash involved on the original deal for it to be a move to increase income in the longer term via increased exposure to a wider audience.

It is actually dangerous. Sorry to keep going on about mental health, but what if I looked up my doctor and there was a bad review? Then the next day he came out and recommended a medication that I didn't really want to take, but would be best for me? That bad review might be enough to weigh my opinion falsely against taking the medication - atm I trust my doctor enough so that I can refuse a medication and he will respect that, but if he really insists, I will take it as I trust that he will do what is best. If I read a bad review, I would be more likely to say I will take the medication and hide it or whatever, which is pretty much a recipe for getting sectioned.

The feedback on medical things on MN is more general - eg someone might say "be careful about just taking what medication a dr gives you", which is a totally different thing to "be careful what medication dr x gives you, he always lies and he sectioned me for no good reason" Don't you see?

Same with physical health - if I had, as said above, a verruca, but I thought it was foot cancer, and my GP examined me and told me it was a verruca, unless things developed somehow, I would trust her. If I had read a review on that site, I might think it was still cancer, get all wound up and end up being taken in by some quack or harrassing the doctor, or getting really worried and ended up with stress related illness.

This is a dangerous partnership. We mostly know we can find reviews of doctors online, we hopefully all know to ignore them. This link gives them an air of legitimacy - we trust MN.

I like MN because it has a good tradition of being skeptical and intelligent. If this carries on, I might as well be on Bounty.