This is almost too hysterically funny to be believed. But apparently Dr. Jeffrey Segal, a North Carolina neurosurgeon, is totally serious. More's the pity.
Physicians are asking patients to sign what amounts to a gag order, giving up their rights to post comments on-line about the physician, "...his expertise and/or treatment."
I agree that the web sites in question are probably not the best information source for someone seeking a physician, though it's debatable whether they're better or worse than conversations over the back fence or after PTA meetings.
Do misinformed patients occasionally post an unfairly negative comment? Sure. Has an undeserving physician ever been praised? Without question. But whether falsely negative or falsely positive, anecdotes about errors are not evidence for much of anything, let alone insisting on a gag order before starting treatment.
Smart consumers (and that's many more of us than certain physicians think, apparently) know enough to rely on multiple information sources for such an important decision. And smart physicians understand that huge amounts of money and consumer trust can be lost pretending the First Amendment doesn't exist.
For physicians, a degree of proactivity might be the better approach here; let your patients know about the web sites and their strengths and weaknesses. Encourage patients with positive comments to post them on your behalf. Advise the patient that you're interested in their feedback and provide multiple avenues for gathering that feedback. Request that any issues be expressed personally so you or your staff can quickly resolve the issue to the patient's satisfaction.
Get in front of the ratings curve, not behind it. And stop letting your lawyer do your talking. And here's one more possibility: that stinging comment on some web site? Maybe, just maybe, the consumer was right.
Someone smarter than me once said "Markets are conversations..." Cluetrain Manifesto, I think. Try it sometime. And watch your rankings skyrocket.
Physicians are asking patients to sign what amounts to a gag order, giving up their rights to post comments on-line about the physician, "...his expertise and/or treatment."
I agree that the web sites in question are probably not the best information source for someone seeking a physician, though it's debatable whether they're better or worse than conversations over the back fence or after PTA meetings.
Do misinformed patients occasionally post an unfairly negative comment? Sure. Has an undeserving physician ever been praised? Without question. But whether falsely negative or falsely positive, anecdotes about errors are not evidence for much of anything, let alone insisting on a gag order before starting treatment.
Smart consumers (and that's many more of us than certain physicians think, apparently) know enough to rely on multiple information sources for such an important decision. And smart physicians understand that huge amounts of money and consumer trust can be lost pretending the First Amendment doesn't exist.
For physicians, a degree of proactivity might be the better approach here; let your patients know about the web sites and their strengths and weaknesses. Encourage patients with positive comments to post them on your behalf. Advise the patient that you're interested in their feedback and provide multiple avenues for gathering that feedback. Request that any issues be expressed personally so you or your staff can quickly resolve the issue to the patient's satisfaction.
Get in front of the ratings curve, not behind it. And stop letting your lawyer do your talking. And here's one more possibility: that stinging comment on some web site? Maybe, just maybe, the consumer was right.
Someone smarter than me once said "Markets are conversations..." Cluetrain Manifesto, I think. Try it sometime. And watch your rankings skyrocket.
Comments