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.

The truly serious stuff eg the surgeon cut off the wrong leg or the GP misdiagnosed cancer as IBS for 2 years would not be on the site, as it would be too potentially libellous for them, and would probably already be in the hands of lawyers. That leaves criticisms of bed side manner.

I agree, appalling website. I hope that the link gets removed.

yanbu. it's an incredibly shoddy website, and the NHS choices website provides this facility in a far more reputable way.

mumsnet i'm disappointed, thought better of you than this.

Can only add my voice to the call to remove the ill-thought through association with this horrendous website, for all the reasons already stated.
It is a bad, bad idea but even if it were a good idea (?!) then the fact that the database is so appallingly out of date / lacking in correct information shows just how unprofessional it all is - three whole years after its launch!
What exactly are MN gaining from all this? Nothing but a bad rep. Such a link just provides legitimacy to this shoddy site.
Use the NHS Choices website and the official complaints processes already in place. As has been said, nhs patients can't choose many hc profs anyway as it's all down to who's on duty / around at the time.
Feel properly annoyed about all this now.

YANBU.

I am a GP and have just searched for myself. Thankfully I don't even appear to exist on the site. My dad however who retired years ago is there and down as still practising.

YANBU. I add my name to the chorus of disapproval.

So that's about 150/1 against

"I just can't understand why they would choose to link their name with his. It tarnishes the brand."

Yes I agree. I really can't see what's in this for MN. It's clear what's in it for this other site - masses of hits and a lot of grumpy slagging off on this thread but MN is hugely respected and successful already - I can't see what they're gaining from the association.

I also can't see what the point is of the site as a whole, given the fact that the NHS version seems to be so much better run.

Nothing new to say

Bad decision on the part of MumsNet ... similar trash to RateMyTeacher and the like

iWGC really must have been laughing their heads off with wonderment and delight when MN agreed to 'associated' with them, ie provide millions of pages of free advertising, for nothing in return. MN, you said you're not getting paid. So what exactly is in it for you? The mind boggles.

Very poor judgement there on the part of MNHQ I think. Definitely akin to ratemyteacher.

I don't have anything to add apart from my own disappointment. As a nurse I come into contact with users of the NHS who have nothing good to say about it and who complain at every turn, despite our best efforts. Reputations will be damaged and people will be nervous of getting help when they need it.

Please MNHQ listen to your users on this one.

How long before nurses are being slated on there?

How can we boycott Mumsnet? Have a day off maybe?

YANBU, it is a horrid idea and am also shocked that MNHQ would see it as a good thing to be associated with. What can we do? MNHQ are you listening?!

Just coming back to this and more disappointed that mn seem to have made no response since the early posts yesterday.
But good to see so many of us in agreement.

Hmm. We could unsubscribe from newsletters? Then they couldn't tell the sponsors that it goes to so many people thus they would lose out?

Absolutely agree. Wrote a long post in response but 'MN has encountered an error' and it's disappeared. Excuse bold type, can't correct it.

I have to say I'm disappointed there has not been more of a response from MNHQ.

I'd be happy to unsubsribe as I feel really quite strongly about this. MN is supporting a poorly designed and badly maintained site (how many posts above citing Dr's who are dead or retired!), that could unfairly damage the reputation (and potentially careers) of doctors, with very little recourse for the doctors.

I am not a doctor but was a nurse, and I'm horrified that decision made in the interest of the patient (refusal to prescribe meds being the most obvious) could be used against medics.

It is the weekend. I would imagine that this thread is on many HQer's Most Watched List, and perhaps some iWGC folks as well.

I'm sure there will be a response as soon as skirts have been gathered.

Yes, as I said above it's the weekend. I know Helen has been on other threads so she is around but I do not know what their internal rules might be about a response to a policy decision thread such as this. It is possible Justine or similar may need to respond and isn't available.

I'm also prepared to unsubscribe to newsletters over this association with 'IWGC'.

MN, ARE YOU LISTENING????

This site seems alarmingly similar to solicitorsfromhell, another "review" site which allows anonymous postings about professionals and affords no real right of reply as even if the solicitors in question could work out which clients were talking about them, the code of conduct would prevent them from defending themselves.

That site has been successfully sued for libel three times this year that I know of.

MissTinaTeaspoon - maybe not nurses, but extension into other areas may well be on the cards (presumably with MNers' help :

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

From the 'health services FAQs' page which I can't find except by clicking on the iwgc link

It just seems daft to ask people to rate anything other than services industries where subjective opinions are all that count. In healthcare surely it's quality and availability of care that are important. Not whether you had the pillow fluffed and your hospital bed turned down.