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.

fastweb I realize this but I also think that MNHQ think they are doing a good thing with this partnership and aren't all about the money as that poster said.

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

It has already been clarified that there was no financial deal.

I'd hope that 'page impressions' can be found from other (more useful and less damaging) sources, MN.

Have linked to this thread on Site Stuff as the busy aspect of AIBU means it may not be spotted by large numbers of members (nor those who avoid AIBU all the time).

NetworkGuy - sorry i wasn't being facetious, the wink was to acknowledge my own dreadful pun.

I agree that which? went downhill for a time, and my parents stopped subscribing for similar reasons to you. I find the online info very helpful.

Anyway, this wasn't meant to be an advert for which?!

MNHQ - I'm going to repeat the call that someone made yesterday for you to take down the advert and have a consultation.

This is an absolutely horrendous decision - this website is fundamentally flawed and possibly DANGEROUS - as others have said, doctors simply DON'T have the right of reply because they are bound by confidentiality - God, is that really so hard to understand?!

Really really bad decision. Really really awful concept which I hope dies out before too many doctors have their reputations damaged and too many people accept the idea that you shop for a doctor in the same way as you shop for a pram - 'Ooh he's awful, he won't give you antibiotics even when you're really ill!'

And I'm with whoever that pointed out that a MEDICAL website which can't spell 'SPECIALITY' hardly inspires confidence.

If MNHQ thinks it is a good thing in of itslef then frankly I think less of them thean I would if they saw it as nothing more than a useful busines arrangment.

Shouty- it is a different word.

I agree that patients who wish to make a complaint will have greater motivation to add a review, and may decide to take that avenue rather than following the NHS complaints procedure.

As others have said, doctors don't have the right to reply, or even the time to do so. Users can anonymously trash years of training and practice.

Take it down MN.

Agree with OP. Registering my distaste at this partnership.

Its all about the money money money, its all about the money money money....

MN has been getting greedy for a while now and is in danger of losing the very thing that made it a success.

Comments by Features Editori of the BMJ from 2008 when the site was 'launched':

*'it?s doubtful if the website will provide any meaningful data and will drive up performance ... The likelihood with a website such as this is it?ll attract those with a major crush on their doctor or those with an axe to grind ? which will no doubt subsequently be removed when the doctor in question lodges a complaint or libel action.

Which is what has the BMA up in arms?doctors are bound by different codes of conduct. Other people or companies have the option to respond if they see fit. But doctors are bound by confidentiality and if they get a stinging review by a patient?and it?s unfounded?a doctor can?t respond. It?s much the same as already happens in the press?allegation from a patient, doctor can?t comment.

The BMA?s concern is that the site could leave doctors open to abuse, libel and even personal attack. One group of doctors has already sought legal advice to block it'*

And if MNHQ are wondering about the reputation of the people they're associating themeselves with, maybe they should check out this Google image search. The first two results speak volumes.

What a shock clicking on that link, and the first image is of one of my children

at catsareevil - that's the only funny thing on this thread.

The rest of it is distinctly unfunny - listen to what your members are telling you MN - this is a BAD link for you.

I have lost a huge amount of respect for MNHQ over this.

Bad move mn, hideous website. Others have eloquently put why, I just wanted to add my voice to say end the partnership. Terrible idea.

Very bad idea to have a website like this, completely agree that it will be very unbalanced, used mainly by those who have complaints, with no real right of reply due to confidentiality.

I live in Italy, what is to stop me trolling that site and randomly bigging up or rubbishing a doctor or ten that I have never clappedmeyes on let alone consulted ?

As we all know trolls have different motivations from normal posters, as site owners you are aware that no content that is user produced is immune from trolling.

When you riased the potential of troll produced reviews what assurances did the linked site offer you in terms of how they verify that the reviewer has ever had a consult with the doctor in question let alone that the review is fair comment ?

i just tested the review peocess, it would seem one doesn't even have the slog of registering inorder to comment.

That lack is something I would have expected this site, with its long experience, to have noted and raised concerns in terms of the potential validity of comments left by posters.

It's a terrible idea for a so called "database". I could go on there and make up a whole load of shit about my doctor and she wouldn't be able to do anything about it. I believe patient confidentiality dictates that she wouldn't even be able to confirm that I am her patient?

Disappointing.

They seem to somehow be under the impression that most doctors think this is a good site. I have no idea how they could have got that idea.

link

Likewise a dodgy doc could go and leave a positive onslaught of overly positive reviews for themself.

Argh! have been avoiding clicking on the site again, damnation! Don't want to give them any more traffic.

"It varies! A few don't like it, but far more have enthusiastically welcomed the idea. The whole area of direct patient feedback is new and for some doctors this is very challenging. However all good doctors want to know what their patients think about them so they can improve and continue to build trust and confidence. Tell your doctor you think it's a good idea - their response might help you tell whether they are the best doctor for you and your family.

Last updated on June 16, 2010 by iWantGreatCare"

Note how they encourage patience to distrust doctors who raise concerns about their prodict.

How very ethical.

Some upstanding partners you have got yourself the mumsnet.

there even

When I saw this thread started yesterday I assumed the ad would be taken down straight away. Why is it still up?

Aaaaaahh... The sound of doctors squirming in the morning

fuckthisforalarf Sat 03-Sep-11 08:30:47

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.

Excellent, if a patient thinks a Doctor has failed in their duty of care they're a loon? As to the rest, really can't be arsed but to say that the attitudes on this thread really only reinforce the need for the balance of power to be shifted as the self serving self regulation we currently live with serves no one but the doctors themselves. What's the point of arguing with people who are never wrong?

x

Another one who thinks it is a bad idea. Doctors can't respond to it, not without breaking their confidentiality agreement.

Anyway, there is already a database showing feedback on doctor's surgeries (even if not on individual doctors), the NHS runs it's own one.

It's moderated, and kept up to date, and easy to use.