Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk

Back to thread
Original poster

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

37 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.

Go to post
MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 02/09/2011 18:40

Hello. And thanks to all who have brought this thread to our attention.

We'd like to reassure you all that we thought long and hard before entering into this partnership with iWantGreatCare - and spent a considerable amount of time asking them exactly the sort of questions you are asking here.

So, just to clear a few things up..

Doctors can posts responses to reviews - and do so regularly. You can see an example of that here

We're assured by iWantGreatCare that they update their database continuously in response to queries/new information about doctor's details. Obviously, it's incredibly important to them that their data is as up to date as possible - and they say they'd positively welcome mails from Mumsnetters pointing out inaccuracies. You can contact them here

sallysparrow157: we've spoken to iWantGreatCare about the examples you mention of retired/dead doctors and they've asked us specifically to ask you to mail them with more details, please.

With reference to worries about libellous/abusive comments, iWantGreatCare tell us they have "multiple systems in place to prevent libel, slander and abusive comments: every posting made is moderated and assessed ? not to prevent fair criticism of poor care, rather to protect doctors from malicious campaigns and unfair comment."

On a more general note, our main reason for entering into this partnership was to encourage Mumsnetters to enrich, enhance and get great value out of iWantGreatCare's database.

In the same way that we know Mumsnetters' individual experiences of parenting (and a whole load of other stuff!) can combine to offer other Mumsnetters the most incredibly informative, useful, wise and wide-ranging help and support, we're hoping that Mumsnetters' feedback on doctors round the country can combine to help other Mumsnetters choose the best doctors (GP, paediatrician, obstetrician, whatever) for themselves and their family - and, sometimes, maybe, help doctors identify where they perhaps could improve their patient relationships, too.

Obviously, the more reviews there are the better ? no one is suggesting that a single review of any one doctor (positive or negative) is useful. It's going to take a little while for the bigger picture to build.

But early results are looking encouraging: we know that since the IWGC/MN partnership was launched, thousands of MNers have searched iWantGreatCare's data - and hundreds of new reviews have already been added.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 02/09/2011 18:50

@TheRealMBJ

HelenMumsnet Could you clarify whether they contact the doctor/hospital in question when a report has been made to allow them to respond?

We can certainly find out, TheRealBMJ. Although we can't promise a reply tonight. We'll get on it.

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 02/09/2011 18:53

@ChaosTrulyReigns

Does anyone remember being asked by MNHQ if we minded if MacDonald's was accepted as an advertiser on here?

Just sayin.

We did ask you all, Chaos. See here

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 Smile

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 02/09/2011 19:00

@ChaosTrulyReigns

Erm, yup, Helen, kind of my point.

Grin

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

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 02/09/2011 19:08

@TheRealMBJ

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

Oh I see re Chaos Blush

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

MNHQ

HelenMumsnet · 02/09/2011 20:08

@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.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 04/09/2011 23:34

Hi all,
Sorry not to respond earlier - I've been on hols and generally we do like to let feedback threads run for a bit before making any snap judgements, so as to give everyone a chance to have their tuppence worth.

So first, thanks for the feedback. It's pretty clear that the majority of you are not happy with the concept of online patient reviews of doctors.

Our sole intention here, as is pretty much the case with all the content we host/create, was to try to develop something useful for Mumsnetters. As Helen said earlier this is not paid-for advertising and the decision to do this wasn't a commercial one - there is no money involved. We simply thought that folks would find patient reviews useful because it's certainly one of the criteria most folk use when choosing a GP or thinking about a specialist - they ask their friends and acquaintances for recommendations. It's clearly not the only thing you'd think about and you might well be a bit sceptical of some recommendations but it's a valid thing in the mix. IWGC have a very clear and functional platform and an existing database.

Obviously there is a danger of vexatious or malicious reviews and it's a more serious business than a vexatious review of a pushchair. We did talk carefully with IWGC about procedures to prevent this but obviously for the wisdom of crowds to prevail you do need quite a large crowd, which is of course where Mumsnet supposedly comes in...

I do take the points, however, that doctors don't have an equal right of reply because of patient confidentiality and that reputation management isn't a great use of medical professionals' time.

It would be helpful to know/discuss whether it is the idea of a reviews site for health professionals in particular that is the main objection or whether it' is that this site is not sufficiently established as yet to to be reliable/useful?

Also how do folks feel, for instance, about Patient Opinion?

But obviously we are not going to continue with something that Mumsnetters' don't want or find useful because that rather defeats the object, so if folks want us to bring it to an end, we will. (If you love the idea and/or can see a future for it shout now because as it stands judging from the posts on this thread it's not looking like a runner!)

Thanks everyone again for your input.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 08:19

@LineRunner

Justine said: We simply thought that folks would find patient reviews useful because it's certainly one of the criteria most folk use when choosing a GP or thinking about a specialist

No it isn't.

Justine, what planet have you recently landed on?

Planet suffolk as it happens. Ok I'll rephrase - people who live in cities and large towns (which is most of us) will often ask around before choosing their GP because there's often more than one option - and many older people will choose where they actually choose to live according to the reputation of doctor's surgery. They will also often ask around about the specialist they've been referred to, or search on the internet for information about them. The obvious parallel is schools although obviously folks don't go to quite the same lengths.

Anyway I'm really not arguing the case - as said we are no going to continue with something that folks don't want - I was merely trying to give you some understanding of our reasoning for doing this in the face of charges of MNHQ greed!

I do actually believe that at some point in the future crowd sourced opinions via the internet will be a way that pretty much all of us evaluate professionals (health and otherwise) but maybe I'm just nuts Smile.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 08:28

Well Curryspice, with the greatest of respect, I beg to differ - it's certainly a really big consideration for the older people I know - not least because in lots of areas of the country they feel that doctors' surgeries don't welcome them. Maybe we should ask on Gransnet about it.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 08:29

@addictediam

I agree with what justine is saying, i did ask some friends when i moved in to a new area about drs sugerys (there were 4), but it was after i had registered with a dr sugery and wasnt happy with the care. (friend said it was the best in the area Hmm) but i didnt ask about specific dr's.

and also agree my nan wont move out of her house for various reasons but one of them i 'i like my dr, he is a very nice man'

but maybe something more focused on establishments may be better rather than drs themselves. in my case i dont often get to see the specialist ive been refered to, just one of his team. so searching for the dr would be pointless, but deciding weather i wanted to go to worcester or reddich with some reviews would be helpful iyswim

Yes I think that's a fair point addictediam.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 08:35

@CornishMade

You always hear of people moving to get their child into a good school; it happens all the time and is a standard consideration for those who can afford it. I've never once heard of older people doing this to get a good GP! Not saying no-one ever has, but it's certainly not anywhere near as big a thing as the schools thing...

Yep I agree it's not as big a thing, as said. But out of interest, would folks also object to a schools reviews on MN (not individual teachers - I think I know the answer to that!)

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 08:39

@CurrySpice

Well I stand corrected Justine while still thinking it's tosh Wink

It has never been a deal breaker for any old people I know. Would an elderly person really move house / chose a house because they didn't like their doctor? Wouldn't they just change doctors?

Anyway, it seems like this site is riddled with mistakes and not worth the paper it's not written anyway so if you want people to base their entire decision on where to live on its information then I think that is a VERY bad idea!! Shock

Yes I agree that the quality of the data is not good enough as it stands the idea was to help build it up into something useful - for the wisdom of crowds to work you need a crowd. What attracted us was that it's very functional and easy to use.

But as said I accept that the points raised on this thread about right to reply and reputation management as valid criticisms and a site that reviewed practices rather than individuals would therefore be preferable.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 08:43

@CurrySpice

Hold on a minute, you said 10 minutes ago that people didn't go to such lengths with schools!

Eh? No I didn't.

I personally would welcome an independent review of schools from a parents view point (as opposed to Ofsted) but not if it is merely an outlet for discontented rantings

On any review site you'll always get ranting individuals. The idea is that a large crowd will drown out those individuals with individual beefs and a fair picture will emerge...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 08:46

@Thumbwitch

Do you mean an MN-based schools review section, Justine? Or a link to a schools review website similar to the one currently under discussion?

Would be interested in all thoughts...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 08:49

@Jackaroo

but it's a red herring, because it doesn't matter what the intent of the site, the reality is different. Health care is different. Doctors are different from lawyers, and engineers, and librarians, and teachers, and.. just about everyone, because they are held to a different, career-deciding standard. They have no right of reply. THATS the difference.

Yes I take that point.

@Jackaroo

and seriously, how many "older" people get to choose where they live next, against this kind of criteria. It might make them stay put - as with addictediam's nan - but it wouldn't be a reason for them to move; well not in the way their financial circumstances would. "Most" old people wouldn't have the finances to choose on any terms other than cost.

It's a factor I think when people move house. I didn't say it's what causes people to move house.

@Jackaroo

Again, straw poll of "old people I know" doesn't seem a valid way to make a decision when your whole brand is affected.

Well it's worked Ok up to now [kidding] Grin.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 08:50

@CurrySpice

Justine was that "Eh? No I didn't" in the middle of my quote aimed at me?

Because you said at 8:19 "The obvious parallel is schools although obviously folks don't go to quite the same lengths."

Ah I see. Yes, what I meant was "obviously people don't go to the same lengths with doctors as with schools"

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 08:57

@CurrySpice

Oh I see - I misunderstood. I thought you meant the opposite from what you did!

Ain't the English language great! :o

Quite probably my rendition of it that caused the confusion.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 09:07

@fastweb

So basically despite all the points made here about the dubious quality of anonomous comment and the lack of a right to reply, thanks to confidentiality issues, of the professionals concerned, not to mention the site owner's difficulty in not over egging his status as a (former) doctor, you still think it is a good idea ?

Taking it down would just be an act of keeping the membership happy ?

I expect you to want to make money out of your business, so if it had been a business deal that on reflection was a bad fit with the demographic, then no harm done.

But I'm less comfortable with an alturistic desire to promote said site because you believe it to be accurate, informative, useful and ethical.

I'm not sure you're reading what I've said!
I've agreed with the very valid points made about the limitations wrt to right to reply and the current quality of the database. I've said I don't think the database issue is insurmountable - it's a question of more input - but that the right to reply issue possibly is, and thus a review site for institutions might be better.
I've said that I think the principle of crowd sourced reviews of professional services will become an popular in time but I could be wrong. But that what I think isn't actually relevant because because the whole point is to be useful and so yes if the membership unanimously (or pretty much unanimously) don't want something then we won't do it.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 09:28

@CinnabarRed

Justine - you're misunderstanding the whole basis of "the wisdom of crowds".

It breaks down when either views are biased one way or the other (as has been pointed out repeatedly here, review sites such as this are many times more likely to get complaints rather than praise down to simple human nature) and/or where "group think" makes people ignore sometimes overwhelming evidence to the contrary in favor of following the direction of the crowd (again the usual example given is 9/11 where literally thousands of people in security services around the world, some of whom had more than enough information to understand the danger, failed to act).

I'm just not sure that's necessarily true - I think people are very ready to praise things if they've had a good experience - if you look at patient opinion it's choc full of positive reviews...

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 11:35

Hello everyone the ads will come down today.
Thanks for all the input.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 12:29

@InnocentRedhead

Great! Thanks! Seems a very short post to say this though, no explanation, nothing... Be nice to know what swayed the decision or how it came about.

We are never happy are we :o

Great decision though!

Hi Innocent - I think I've said it all on the thread really - it's not MNHQs opinion of the potential value of something that counts but yours (and Mumsnetters in general). Only reason I really entered into the debate was to fully understand the objection for future reference and to counter any claims of gross venality on our part Shock. But as a rule we won't ever pursue something that folks don't want or find useful because it's not what we're here for.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 12:32

@wigglesrock

Sorry if I missed it, but was there a reason why MumsNetters weren't canvassed for opinion before entering into the partnership, like we were with McDonalds etc, it just seems strange that a site as savvy as MN didn't think there would be such a strong opinion about rating medical staff amongst its members Hmm?

Quite simply because it wasn't a commercial partnership and we didn't think of it as anything other than providing a useful service/ useful content.
With Macdonalds we were aware that it potentially controversial and unpopular. With IWGC we were not.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 13:44

@CalatalieSisters

I think that Mumsnet is about halfway between Shakespeare and an infinite number of monkeys with keyboards. Facebook's "like" button is about nine tenths of the way from Shakespeare to infinite monkeys, and the IWGC thing is the same, but with vindictive monkeys.

Smile Wikipedia?

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 05/09/2011 13:49

@thefirstMrsDeVere

Right! Now you have sorted that lot out Justine can you pop over and deal with my Bungalow/garden/wanky builder situation please

Ta
Grin

Small local dispute over on the feminism boards to be looked at first.
Then I'll be right over.

Watch this thread for updates

Tap "Watch" to get all the latest updates