Doctor rating sites filling a void
We ran an op-ed piece a couple of weeks back from the president of the Medical Society of New Jersey, Red Bank orthopedic surgeon Richard J. Scott, attacking Web sites that allow consumers to rate their doctors. He specifically singled out RateMDs.com, suggesting that the comments he read on the site about his colleagues were inaccurate and unfairly negative.
That’s just the opposite of my experience. The only thing I don’t like about the site is the fact there aren’t enough comments about enough doctors – including Scott himself, who was nowhere to be found in the listings.
But the responses posted on RateMds.com for the doctors I am familiar with, either through my own experiences or those of family members and friends, invariably seem to be dead-on – particularly when it comes to such things as bedside manner, waiting times, courtesy of staff and the amount of time the doctor spends with patients.
Obviously, technical competence is the most important factor in choosing a doctor. But the manner in which a doctor interacts with patients and runs his office should be important considerations.
Scott says there should be transparency and accountabilty on sites such as rateMDs.com. There also should be transparency and accountability in the profession. Right now, there is very little. Choosing a doctor remains a crapshoot. Other than information about the doctors' medical training, board certifications and whether or not they have been successfully sued - information available on the N.J. Division of Consumer Affairs Web site and at RateMDs.com - there is no objective data available on professional competence. Sites like RateMD.com and DrScore.com help fill a void - one largely created by doctors themselves.
If Scott and the Medical Society are truly concerned about giving consumers accurate information, it is within their power to do so. They should develop a plan that provides consumers with objective data about patient outcomes. Unless that happens, consumer-driven sites will become increasingly popular alternatives.
That’s just the opposite of my experience. The only thing I don’t like about the site is the fact there aren’t enough comments about enough doctors – including Scott himself, who was nowhere to be found in the listings.
But the responses posted on RateMds.com for the doctors I am familiar with, either through my own experiences or those of family members and friends, invariably seem to be dead-on – particularly when it comes to such things as bedside manner, waiting times, courtesy of staff and the amount of time the doctor spends with patients.
Obviously, technical competence is the most important factor in choosing a doctor. But the manner in which a doctor interacts with patients and runs his office should be important considerations.
Scott says there should be transparency and accountabilty on sites such as rateMDs.com. There also should be transparency and accountability in the profession. Right now, there is very little. Choosing a doctor remains a crapshoot. Other than information about the doctors' medical training, board certifications and whether or not they have been successfully sued - information available on the N.J. Division of Consumer Affairs Web site and at RateMDs.com - there is no objective data available on professional competence. Sites like RateMD.com and DrScore.com help fill a void - one largely created by doctors themselves.
If Scott and the Medical Society are truly concerned about giving consumers accurate information, it is within their power to do so. They should develop a plan that provides consumers with objective data about patient outcomes. Unless that happens, consumer-driven sites will become increasingly popular alternatives.
posted by Randy Bergmann at 9:36 AM
2 Comments:
Clearly it is in patients best interest to have accurate, representative data on doctor quality. It is also in doctors' best interest, too!
People don't realize what a great job doctors are doing. We've looked at the DrScore.com database of doctors with 20 or more ratings. The median patient satisfaction score is 9.5 out of 10! I'm a dermatologist, and my 9.0 out of 10, as good as that is, only puts me in the bottom 25% of doctors.
Consumers need to take back control of their patient satisfaction, and as in other industries, only the consumer can effect change. So in the case of MyDocHub.com patients rate their doctor based on waiting room times, total wait time including the time in the patient room with the doctor, and a simple rating of 1 to 5, 5 being the highest on how satisfied they were with that appointment. The ratings are averaged out, so one poor score does not hurt the doctor, but on the other hand, various poor ratings may indicate poor performance by the doctor, since the wisdom of crowds determine a more accurate assessment of the doctor.
Post a Comment
<< Home