Comments on: Let Angie’s List Turn You Into An Empowered Consumer

By: Garry G Reinhardt

Garry G Reinhardt — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 20:56:53 +0000

Re “Doctor reviews featured on Fox News”
Angie, I was disappointed that you didn’t ask the representative for doctors how he would suggest a patient assess a doctor’s abilities. There are certainly good and bad doctors; some of them very bad. I’ve never heard any practical way for a patient to assess a doctor’s abilities. The Discover magazine has a regular column on difficult to diagnose medical ailments (after they’ve been solved). Almost, without exception, the patient had to be very persistent; seeing many doctors before finally getting a correct diagnosis, i.e. there were many incorrect diagnoses! I’ve read that doctors often piggyback off of previous diagnosis – so if the first diagnosis is incorrect, it can be difficult to get a doctor to take a fresh look.

The problem is that the people who know who the bad doctors are, the folks who work with them day in and day out, aren’t talking; it’s probably not realistic to expect them to. The only other folks who might know a doctor’s “quality”, aside from other doctors, are the “supervisors / management” at hospitals (most doctors are associated with a hospital, right?); but they aren’t talking either. And, from what I’ve seen on the web, people who have had a bad experience dominate any discussion; so if there’s any info on a doctor, it’s likely to be bad, as the guest opposite you pointed out.

Something needs to be done to weed out the really bad doctors. Preventing second and on diagnoses from being piggybacked on the previous bad diagnosis also needs to be addressed. The biggest help I can see is computerizing patient records so that patients, as well as doctors, can easily see everything in their medical files. I’d love to see a list of how computerized a medical facility is. It’s just amazing to me how bad the medical facilities are, when it comes to using computing technology.

I think a good measure of a facility’s & doctor’s competency is how well (or not) they’ve integrated “computing”. Medical science has exploded the amount of medical knowledge to the point where no one doctor can possibly “know it all”. Any “good” doctor and medical facility will make extensive use of “computing” technology. For that reason, I’d love to see a list rating how well computing has been integrated into the medical facilities. Since the “Feds” are pushing this, I’d think that could be done reasonably quickly?

By: willam hopkins

willam hopkins — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 22:58:44 +0000

Great post, thanks.

By: Patients rights

Patients rights — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:20:00 +0000

“Grudge” reviews on doctors seem very rare. That seems to be hysteria generated by doctors, a myth to discredit doctor review sites. Or perhaps generated by bad doctors who got outed by reviews.

On the other hand, it seems common for doctors to plant glowing reviews on themselves, so patients beware.

One way to sort through is not by positive reviews, but by the absence of negative reviews. It doesn’t guarantee the doctor is good, but betters the chances.

Having doctors give their version of what happened doesn’t help. Doctors are adept at deflecting fault on to the patient. Patients are conditioned to accept fault (especially women) because, hey, they’re doctors and wouldn’t harm us right? LOL.

In all, it seems patients are more genuine and well meaning in their reviews than are doctors.

Someone should form an organization for patients. Doctors have their ‘brotherhoods’ that give them strength in numbers – medical boards and other certification groups. Patients need the same. At least with the advent of the internet and review sites, doctors can’t say “you’re the only one who’s had this problem with me” as much anymore. That’s why some doctors don’t like review sites. It keeps them honest and empowers patients.

Ratemds.com is also a good site.