Doctor rating web sites: Who’s responsible?

New Jersey’s Asbury Park Press has published an editorial by Dr. Richard J. Scott, president of the Medical Society of New Jersey, slamming Web sites that allow patients to anonymously rate their doctors.

There should be transparency and accountability here, just as we expect from the press. Free speech does not give someone the right to shout fire on a crowded Internet. How do physicians get their reputations back once the damage is done?

Unfortunately, accountability and the Internet don’t go hand-in-hand, and it is unlikely that sites such as these will ever be regulated.

I’ve looked at a number of such sites, and the overwhelming number of comments left by patients are positive. Where there are negatives, however, it becomes the patients responsibility to decide if they are going to take it seriously or not. One negative against a doctor on these sites could be a disgruntled employee. 20 negatives I think signifies that that doctor has some serious patient-relations problem.

Generally, people using these sites are used to Internet-based anonymous rating systems, such as those you see on Amazon.com, and they are also used to taking comments like these with a grain of salt. The comments are open and unsubstantiated, and I think that most users of these sites understand that.

Web site rating doctors transforms opinions into indictments [Via Asbury Park Press]

Bookmark to:

From Medical Economics magazine, more on patient relations ...

Permalink