More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Mark Britton

GET UPDATES FROM Mark Britton
 

Patient Reviews: Putting Doctors on the Examining Table

Posted: 09/24/11 12:02 PM ET

Every month in the U.S., we engage in 100 million searches for health-related information online. [1] Of that number, roughly 15 percent focus on doctors and their backgrounds -- e.g., work and education history, insurance accepted, care philosophy and, increasingly, patient reviews. [2] While just the utterance of "patient reviews" makes most doctors break into hives, thinking through why these reviews exist may be the calming saltwater bath doctors need to start fostering such reviews rather than fearing them.

To begin, it's important to recognize patient reviews exist because we want them to. Recent Nielsen data shows consumers trust online reviews second only to recommendations from people they know. This may be surprising, but think of your own purchasing behavior: Let's say you are researching a big-ticket purchase -- maybe the high-end MB360 mountain bike. Google sends you to a website for the MB360, with videos of professional riders hopping over Paul-Bunyan-size logs. There are all sorts of glitzy quotes from top riders and high-resolution photos offering detail all the way down to the whatchamacallits on the thingamajigs. While all of this is interesting, does your research stop there? No. Your next Google search looks something like, "User reviews for MB360."

Why do we seek out the reviews of our consuming brethren? Because such reviews are a form of "word of mouth." We like to know what others -- especially groups of others -- think about prospective products and services. It is why review websites like Yelp, TripAdvisor and Avvo have boomed in the last decade. It is why YouTube is replacing TV, Wikipedia is replacing Encyclopedia Britannica and Facebook has unleashed its torrent of "likes."

Notwithstanding this freight train of Web 2.0 consumer demand, many doctors (or their consultants) are operating from a fearful place and attempting to silence patient reviews. They argue that patient reviews are subject to fraud, there are too few of them to be useful and patients cannot evaluate service quality. They have even filed a couple dozen lawsuits just to prove their point.

But these fearful arguments don't hold water for me.

Review "fraud" is the most-offered criticism of patient reviews -- the idea that these reviews are simply the product of crazy patients, jealous competitors and jilted lovers. The underlying message is that all patient reviews are negative and will only hurt doctors. This could not be further from the truth. A recent American Medical Association study found 90 percent of all online doctor reviews are positive. Moreover, while no system can completely avoid fraud (take the SEC or IRS as two well-funded examples), the leading review websites have invested in sophisticated and responsible systems that are successfully weeding out fraudulent reviews. Speaking for Avvo, we reject 35 percent of the reviews we receive because they fail our screening requirements and community guidelines.

Next, the argument that there are too few reviews available on any one site to be valuable makes no sense. This is akin to criticizing the person who brings a can of food to the holiday food drive. Critics of patient reviews would probably scream "don't bring it!" as such a small amount could not possibly help. But there are a lot of very hungry people out there -- both for a can of food and for a review of a doctor who might remove their gall bladder.

Finally, the idea that patients cannot evaluate quality of care is where irrationality meets hubris. Yes, patients may be less educated in technical health issues, but they are well-educated in their body pain, doctor office smells and poor bedside manner.

To put it another way, it is their opinion, and it is my opinion that when the opinions of your customers are involved, they are always right. In testimony before Congress relating to the health care bill, Dr. Donald Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, could not have put it any better. He said, "In my view, we doctors are not our patients' partners; we are guests in our patients' lives. We are not hosts ... An overarching aim for an ideal [physician] practice [is] that its patients would say of it, 'They give me exactly the help I need and want exactly when I need and want it.'"

In the end, it is not a question of whether these reviews should exist because the consuming masses have already spoken. Yes, we need to remain vigilant in weeding out fraudulent reviews. Yes, we need more patient reviews in general. And yes, patients' opinions will not always be 100 percent technically accurate. There will always be room for improvement. But I believe that silencing consumer opinion through lawsuits and fear-mongering should never be the path to such improvement.

I believe that the real question is whether doctors are ready to embrace this new era of transparency not only made available by the Internet but also developed by their very own patients. Early signs are that some doctors will embrace patient reviews and also use them to their marketing advantage. Some will be indifferent. And those with the most to hide will always squirm on the patient-review examining table.

[1] [2] Based on 2010 Google AdWords search data

 

Follow Mark Britton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Mark_Britton

Every month in the U.S., we engage in 100 million searches for health-related information online. [1] Of that number, roughly 15 percent focus on doctors and their backgrounds -- e.g., work and educat...
Every month in the U.S., we engage in 100 million searches for health-related information online. [1] Of that number, roughly 15 percent focus on doctors and their backgrounds -- e.g., work and educat...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 15
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiamiMama
08:43 PM on 09/24/2011
I could never understand how doctors can make you wait hours to see them. You get in there and you get you 3-5 minutes tops. I am a teacher. If I had parents wait past their appointment time, they would go crazy. Why do they think they can? Bad business model.
11:11 PM on 09/24/2011
My wife is a nurse practitioner and she works her butt off all day long. She tries very hard to keep to schedule, but patients are often late, and sometimes cases end up taking way longer to do _correctly_ than the tiny slots they're scheduled in. Don't blame the doctors - blame the people who (over)schedule them.

She hates being late for people, by the way.
02:11 AM on 09/25/2011
It's a scheduling problem. Poor management. In some cases, it could go by another name as well: greed.
MommyMD
MD, Professor, Mom
05:19 AM on 09/25/2011
Do you mean greed, like fight with insurance companies the whole day to get decent care for your patients? Greed like making enough $ to pay back 300K in student debt? Greed like keeping your business afloat and still have enough money for you and your spouse's beaten up Hondas. I'm in a low-paying sub-specialty, but I don't think greed is driving younger docs into the biz. There are plenty of other jobs that don't take away your youth, and make much better money. I think the scheduling issue is the poor primaries overbooking to keep out of the red. Maybe talk to the insurance company execs about Greed.....and hope for national healthcare, so we can fix this disgraceful system.
olddognewtrick
Half full or half empty...It's the same
07:41 PM on 09/24/2011
doctors on the examingin table? You're other cheeks doc!
05:09 PM on 09/24/2011
I have come across some sites that do have "patient" submitted reviews of MDs. While I admit I have never attempted a thorough search, those that I have seen have very few reviews on any one doctor and for the most part, are neither helpful or positive. Certainly, an upset patient is more likely to post a negative comment than is a contented patient going to post a positive comment.

Recently, I had to see a hand surgeon. My own doc recommended one, and when I checked him out on line, despite being board certified in his area, there were a number of negative comments. So I checked on other hand surgeons in the area and come up with strikingly similar results.

With some trepidation, I made my appointment with the recommended surgeon. He was professional, friendly, thorough in his exam, and quite clear about my treatment options. I could not have asked for a better evaluation or explanation of treatment options.

We have a ways to go before online reviews become truly helpful.
12:21 PM on 09/24/2011
I'm not a doctor, but I am in a profession (college teaching) where there are some unsolicited review websites. My experience may be illuminating.

In anonymous questionnaires distributed to the entire class, I almost always have median scores that are "excellent" or "very good", and I get many appreciative comments about my presentation skills and the care with which I treat my students.

But on at least one website which relies on unsolicited testimony, there is a tiny handful of comments, and they are mostly negative.

Any person providing a service will spark a bad reaction sometimes -- it's just human nature. Those bad reactions are MUCH, MUCH more likely to be reported than the good ones. And that is what the doctors are afraid of -- even the good ones. Even the very, very good ones.
MommyMD
MD, Professor, Mom
03:44 PM on 09/24/2011
Palindrom is right. Volunteer Web Sites are inherently biased toward negative comments(and easily buffed up by the docs' family and friends etc.). In searching for my own docs, Add in an n of 5, you have wildly ineffective service that helps no one except the company that runs the sites and receives adverstising$.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sharon Hanson
Skeptical of the *pseudo-skeptics*
11:33 AM on 09/25/2011
But you have to admit that doctors are not doing the job of screening the bad ones out. You stick together and refuse to out a doctor that has done grave harm and even go as far as to deny medical treatment and a diagnosis for those that are truly sick and in need of medical attention. An example of this is Lyme disease and mold exposure. The IDSA and ACOEM both have suppressed knowledge of the health consequences of either being exposed to mold or that Lyme disease is the debilitating disease that it is. The CT AG had to bring an antitrust violation lawsuit against the IDSA to rid the committee responsible for treating guidelines to ever consider the expert opinions of doctors that actually treated Lyme disease. And the list goes on and on. The medical profession rarely tells the truth and the AMA actively seeks to suppress anything that is contrary to their industry friendly business model.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sharon Hanson
Skeptical of the *pseudo-skeptics*
11:37 AM on 09/25/2011
The AG of CT brought a lawsuit that forced the board to get rid of doctors with industry ties and allow doctors that actually treat Lyme disease on the panel.

http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?a=2795&q=414284

http://www.drcraner.com/images/suits_over_mold_WSJ.pdf