Proposed creation of the "Slimeball award" thread

[irish eyes]

Surely one needs to approach any online review with a degree of skepticism.

If there was too much effusive praise, then I would suspect there was something going on. (This has happened with Trip Advisor by the way).

Being a patient is probably the only occasion where one unconditionally places their fate in another's hands. Whilst having `good doctor' and `bad doctor lists' might seem convenient, it could also lead to complacency; it he or she is on the `good list' then it must be OK.

[Guest]

Surely one needs to approach any online review with a degree of skepticism.

I couldn't agree more!

I do find that generally speaking, as long as there are a LOT of reviews, if you average them out, your odds of having an accurate picture of the doc increases. (I'm basing this on my experiences with my own GP, OB, derm, ophth, etc. PLUS, I work with a lot of docs, so have had a chance to compare what people say about them on RateMDs.com with what I know of them personally)

On the other hand, if there are only a handful of reviews, it is far more likely that the overall picture being presented is innaccurate.

So it's not perfect, but I thought some might find it a useful starting point for docs that no-one here is familiar with. It's better than nothing. And, well, if anyone wants to publicly call out a doc for poor care, it's a great site for that!

If there was too much effusive praise, then I would suspect there was something going on. (This has happened with Trip Advisor by the way).

Being a patient is probably the only occasion where one unconditionally places their fate in another's hands. Whilst having `good doctor' and `bad doctor lists' might seem convenient, it could also lead to complacency; it he or she is on the `good list' then it must be OK.

Totally true.

[hirentherock]

What we can do is like

1)Make a list of doctors with full details.
2)Every one on the forum can vote for a doctor.The voting system needs to be considered.I believe there can be 10 star voting options.! patient can vote for max 2 doctors.Also a user who is not less than 90 days old at forum would not be allowed to vote(to stop spammers).The average star would be displayed for that doctor.there cab ne many doctors of 4* or 8* or so...So one can not consider A DOCTOR TO BE THE BEST. We can only judge who is near to best.
3)Give necessary disclaimer wherever its applicable.(Im from India hence i dont know the laws of the country where DESForum is located.

Also one thing to be noted is 1 doctor may be a cornea specialist.A patient with severe cataract problem approaches the doc...As all docs r supposed to do all kind of ocular problems, but the patient finds the cornea specialist not up to the mark...the patient will review average for that doctor.This would not be good for doctors as well as patients of the same doctor.

[irish eyes]

How can `Best' or `Near to Best' be defined?

[hirentherock]

As i said STAR system can be followed.
There shoudnt be any numeric ranking.Just 1/10 stars. or 5/10.
Or we can reduce it to 5 stars or 3 stars.There will be many doctors who will be ranked on a particular star.
A numeric rank will create problems for sure.

[irish eyes]

What would be achieved by doing this?

[Ariel]

Hirentherock-- I think what you've described doesn't appear to be a thread that would give patients the opportunity of posting opinions, warnings about doctors, or criticisim about the treatment they've received.

If I understand correctly a patient would only have the ability of rating two doctors. Why two? What is the logic behind it? Many patients have seen over a dozen. Dr. Latkany said in one of his posts that most of the DE patients that come to him have already seen five of them.

The biggest problem I see with your idea is that you're only letting a patient tell us that two of the doctors he's visited are good, very good, or extremely good. So what is this... a joke??? We already have a "Plug a doc" thread for patients who have good things to say about their doctors. It allows them to explain in full detail everything they consider positive which is more helpful to us --and the doctor-- than it would be to see any number of stars next to his name.

So if we already have a thread for praising and recommending doctors that works very well why do we need another one?

[EllMitcho]

My thoughts . .

Hi - I think this is a bad idea tbh, the nature of the posts on this thread alone suggest it is a contraversial suggestion. My opinion is that anything that may put the forum at risk is dangerous and not something we should undertake lightly.

Rebecca should (and will) have the final say - but for me it's just not worth the risk for the benefit.

Cheers

El

[irish eyes]

If having such a list is a good idea; how would those outside DEZ get access to it? Surely it wouldn't be published and widely disseminated?

Taking the idea further; if one inflicts `reputational damage', how would doctors defend themselves? Shouldn't they be able to?

[hirentherock]

The idea behind limiting voting to 2 is to set a limit for a possible spammer.If im a doctor and i keep praising myself with fake opinions, rating myself higher n higher by voting again n again...This way patients will be at risk....Who will be responsible then?

Posting opinions...well it can be done in simple threads too...there r many threads where patients have mentioned they have visited so n so doctor and they have been treated badly/nicely etc...Whats need to take a risk then to form such a forum?Search the threads thats it!!!

Im trying to give just an idea how we can start such thread with least critisicm from medical world as well as from the patients point of view.

[Ariel]

I think all of you will agree with me when I say this is getting out of hand!

You can make the thread I proposed for us to have as complicated and as dangerous as you want it to be. The idea of having all the positive input about doctors in one thread is already being used and it is working. I don't believe that if you don't have something good to say about a doctor you should keep it to yourself. Why should you if it can help other patients?

Oftentimes we realize it was a mistake to visit a doctor after we leave his office. In another post someone mentioned an article in which a doctor said some patients who don't find relief in DE treatment should see a psychiatrist. If I had an appointment with that doctor I sure would like to know that's what he thinks about some of us before coming to see him.

We don't seem to have a problem telling each other what medicine we're using and whether or not it is working for us. Nobody asks to be contacted privately in order to reveal that restasis is not working for him. Why should that information be exchanged in secrecy? It never is, and it would be ridiculous for it to be.

We're not afraid about being sued by pharmaceutical companies but when it comes to mentioning a doctor's name in connection to an unfavorable comment many of you seem to think is like handing a gun to that doctor and inviting him to shoot us. What's wrong with you people ?????? Doctors can live with patients liking or not liking them. There isn't a single documented case of a doctor doing any of the things you fear they may do. Not one.

We're talking about having a thread no different from the "Plug a doc" we already have. No different in the sense that it will give patients an opportunity to share information. I'm as interested in knowing that doctors are doing a great job as I am about knowing what doctors are getting complaints from their patients.

When we say we're only going to allow ourselves to praise doctors on this forum, when it becomes an "unwritten rule" for us to obey we're taking away the very principles that makes us prefer a democratic government to a dictatorship. We live in fear of doctors, we embrace that fear. God help us if a doctor gets upset! He'll hire attorneys, close the forum... Sure he will, and cut off our genitals too!!! Some of you are so paranoid it is frightening!

People say pretty damaging things when they post their opinion about hotels and restaurants. You can say you saw something on someone's plate that looked like a roach. That's pretty heavy. It can be true or false but no restaurant owner is going to sue you for saying it in a public forum.

It so happens that no one can keep you from saying you saw something that looked like a roach to you, even if it wasn't. Some of you seem to think doctors have the time, the energy, and the resources to go after any patient who's not happy with them. Where do you get this idea?

[irish eyes]

This thread might well be getting out of hand but I still think these proposals could lead to inappropriate comments being posted online about individual doctors – which could unfairly reflect on their overall clinical competence.

I’m unlucky to have other eye conditions and nearly lost the sight of my right eye years ago. The consultant who saved it was unable to do anything about the misery of dry eye – which was a separate problem.. Did he try to help me with it? Well, I suppose he did. Did he think it was important to deal with the dry eye? I found him rather dismissive. Would I put him on a list of bad doctors? Certainly not.

We base our judgments on many factors – significantly a doctor’s interpersonal skills. These factors can be misleading when it comes to judging their clinical competence. The man who looked after my sight all those years ago could be brusque ( he upset me at times) but he actually developed a kind of `respect’ for what I had been through. And he was the only doctor I could trust to inject steroids straight into my eye. (ouch).

There is potential for anonymous online patient feedback to be uncontrolled, leading to inappropriate / defamatory accusations.

[Ariel]

Irisheyes--- "There is potential for anonymous online feedback to be uncontrolled, leading to inappropriate/defamatory accusations"

There was the potential doctors might pretend to be patients to post positive feedback about themselves as there was also the risk of patients giving doctors undeserved credit for things they hadn't accomplished.

These possibilities existed when "Plug a doc" was created. Some precautions could have been taken such as not allowing new members to post. As far as I know none of them were and it doesn't seem to have been a problem.

[Guest]

So I know we all sound totally paranoid about legal issues on this, but it can be pretty crazy over here with the kind of stuff people get sued for...

Add to that that the average middle class person cannot afford to hire a lawyer because the fees are too high for us, and you can see why we would be paranoid and avoid doing anything that might get us or our business sued.

[Ariel]

It's a sad way to go through life, isn't it?