Slashdot Mirror
Doctors Sue Patients for Online Complaints
Carl Bialik writes "'Several Web sites have sprung up that encourage patients to post anonymous reviews of doctors and dentists. Some frustrated patients have even created entire Web sites to criticize specific physicians. The Wall Street Journal Online is reporting that some doctors are, in turn, defending their reputation by suing the online critics."
Awww, they should toughen up. Spending time posting on Slashdot should help out with that as no interesting or informative post here goes without some sort of pain.
Seriously though, if the patients are reporting on their experience, then that is not slander. Just stick to the facts and they should be fine. However, when you start crossing the line into statements that cannot be substantiated, then that is dangerous water. It is of course important to have resources like Slashdot where comments past a certain date cannot be modified. They become a part of the historical record that documents both protection for and against issues of speech.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
That reminds me. . . I'm not entirely satisfied with my family physician.
Doctors are already a protected class of citizens, who have enormous power over the average person. They've got sanctioned monopoly powers, have a huge amount of leeway in treatment quality, and generally don't come close to the quality of service that they did a generation ago.
It is in everyone person's right to criticize bad service, and the threat of libel lawsuits should not be as powerful. When you have a State-sanctioned power to treat others, it shouldn't stop you from giving your best, especially in life or death situations.
I have a great doctor who has been retired for probably 15 years. He's old school and treats me and my family with respect and friendliness. He's available 24/7 by phone (home, office, cell, pager) and he's called me back at bizarre times when I've had problems. All my friends are blown away by the stories I have of his service.
I've been to other doctors and wish I had the time to complain. Dirty exam rooms, gossiping about other patients, staff that works more like DMV workers than health professionals.
I guess these people should just shut up and take what the State spoonfeeds them. Just wait until we have Nationalized Healthcare if you really want to see things get worse.
The American Dental Associations is no better.
First Amendment restrictions on our Federal and State governments should be re-visited. "No law" means no law. Especially when a doctor is free to blog their side of the story. I'm not sure why it is in anyone's power to curb the speech of others on a private or public forum.
Free speech does not give the right to libel. It never has, and that has not changed with advent of the Internet.
Sue your customers until they love you. It's working for the RIAA, after all!
See what I've been reading.
...I plan to file suit against any /.ers that disagree with my posts.
Dark Reflection
Remember the last election? We had "free speech zones." People who disagreed with the politicians' (both Right and Left) point of view were told to go somewhere else to protest. And furthermore, it was illegal for the press to enter those areas.
We no longer have real free speech in our country. Sure we can open a titty-bar. Sure we can show boobies on HBO. But if the status quo doesn't want the truth to be said, be it the government or the medical establishment, they'll stomp it out. Get used to it. The 60s are over folks.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Sounds like more states need anti-SLAPP laws.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
> so much that people feel the need to complain
I feel the problem is that lots of people tend to complain about everything.
Somewhere along the line, people took "the right to pursuit happiness" and changed it to "the right to happiness". People feel that are guaranteed certain things, by default, and if they aren't happy, then there is someone somewhere who's at fault. Certainly not themselves. So if they don't feel relief the moment the leave the doctor, they complain, or a doctor tells them they are fat, they sue because it's not what they want to hear, it's not them being happy. It's someone else fault, so join me in pointing the finger.
i don't care
It wasn't that long ago that there was a big stink over a doctor-run web site that blacklisted malpractice plaintiffs so that doctors could deny them future coverage, regardless of who won the case. Google cached link I guess it's not so funny when someone does it to them.
I didnt know there was anyhting illegal about posting on ones experience. If a patient does not post false information and made up facts about the person and it is all just their opinion then these Doctors have a moot argument.
GL HF!
The problem that's come up is that people have found it easier to file a civil lawsuit than accept defeat, and as we all know, defense against frivilous lawsuits is expensive and certainly not a guarantee, even if you're in the right.
The truth is an absolute defense against libel, but it's not going to protect you from a lawsuit.
Those interested in this subject should probably check out The Death of Free Speech by John Ziegler, a radio host who recently won a libel suit filed by a ex who happened to be a TV personality after making true statements about her on the air.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Before i see a dentist or a doctor i like to get some opinions on who I should or shouldn't go to. Which can be difficult if you are new to the area. If it's constructive critism I see no reason why it shouldn't be posted online, but not outright slander. Last thing I want is some hack fixing my teeth or prescribing me meds.
For an average of $300 per year, just about anyone can get Umbrella Liability Insurance. Such insurance shields you from many things including slander and libel claims.
That way, the evil corporation or incompetent doctor that wants to shut you up with a frivilous lawsuit will really be suing your multi-billion dollar insurance company. $1 Million worth of coverage is typically around $300 per year. Multi-million policies are frequently available for not much more.
I'm a big tall mofo.
The reason the doctors' are suing is this: true, you do have free speech, but you have to be responsible with it. If you slander (I guess in this case it would be libel) someone, they have the right to sue you. You would need to have disclaimers galour on the web-sites and all sorts of legal rhetoric to protect your backside. Case in point is the site bestbuysux.org. He has been sued a couple of times and has had to reorganize content and post disclaimers.
As long as you act responsiblly and have your backside covered you're good. If you make you make everything look legit but it is really just a flame page because you don't like someone's bedside manner; well, someone with their career on the line may just come after you.
I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
Be it a blog, a forum or just a plain old web zine. Remember, just because someone wrote it on the web, doesn't mean jack that it's even vaugly true. Remember people, one thing people love to do on the web, is exagerate, boast and inflame. And just because it involves doctors doesn't mean it's any diffrent.
Some of the complaints may be true, but on the Internet, accountability is zero, so you don't know if a post is true or fabricated. ONe person can falsely generate thousands of complaints against a doctor or, appeal to only those who wish to complain about a doctor and provide steeply one sided evidence against the individual.
I know a lot of people here may not like Doctors and the fortunes they apparently gain. But it's not without cause and things like this aren't making it any easier for them. No I don't want to give them a free pass but don't judge everything by it's cover people. Be weary of complaints and get a second opinion before you start marching along side the vocal minority.
Sentack
Without exhausting existing avenues for complains against Physicians/Surgeons, posting directly on the Internet should be discouraged.
Not, it is not a issue of free speech, but if the Physicians will have to constantly watch their back against disgrunted people posting online, their quality of service might suffer.
I know this as a Physician myself.
As an alternative one can always report to the licensing boards and ask for review by a panel of experts and specialists instead of setting up a novice 'peoples' court and run a witch hunt.
Most Importantly, if a patient visits a doctor, they enter automatically into a non-disclosure agreement although no legal documents need to be signed.. by virtue of visiting a doctor, a patient agrees to put himself/herself under that doctor's care. The burden is on the patient to find a physician whom he can believe.
If Patients who may be not be satisfied due to a combination of myriad factors start using the Web primarly as a means to get back at the doctors, what is going to stop the Doctors to retaliate likewise by releasing confidential health details about their patients if they are not satisfied with the patients for example?
My end point is that this is a delicate issue and must be handled according to set protocols and procedures. Wild West tactics might only backfire on the general population.
The core problem, in the age of the internet, is that anyone can say anything about anybody and be potentially accessible on a world stage. Thus, what some patient posts about a doctor can have a significant impact on that doctor. If I Google a doctor's name and some thisdoctorsucks.com entry pops up, I'm not going to visit that doctor.
As it stands, doctors have no recourse (except for lawsuits) to put in their side of the story. I'd bet that many cases of malpractice are actually cases of "malpatients" -- the patient's own stupidity, irresponsibility, lack of candor, or failure to follow the doctor's recommendations contributed to or even caused the problem. Add to that the simple problem of mismatch of social styles and one person's "uncaring" physician is another person's efficient doctor.
My point is that any system that potentially inflicts damage on a person's reputation should have a "due process" mechanism that lets that accused defend their actions or tell their side of the story. To avoid costs, this system needs to be automated so that if the patient can post their allegations online, the doctor can reply with their side of the story.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
The defendant may plead and establish the truth of the statements as a defense.
This is just unfair. Look at it this way: what if it were your career? If you work a service job, what if managers from companies worldwide in your industry started manager forums to talk about your performance and possibilies for hiring. Its way too unreliable. If you work a professional job at a desk-- same deal. And if you're a manager, what if clients all started forum-ing about your business? Plus, is there any check for truth in comments? Perhaps I'm just a malignant troublemaker and decide one afternoon that it would be fun to ruin the career of a respectable practicing doctor. Is phone calling and talking too slow? The old heard-from-my-friend-he's-bad [or good] seems fine to me. Phone calling and gossip are tried and trued methods.
If what they are saying is not factual then it should be very clearly presented as nothing more than an opinion. The free flow of information like this is an integral part of capitalism.
IANAL but while I believe that the doctors can sue for false information posted online that can be shown to cause damages they would have to file a suit, prove that the information posted online is false and not solely an opinion. They have no grounds to prevent people from posting their comments and can only file a suit after the fact (that is, prior restraint is not allowed). Imagine if M$ decided to sue for every "Windows Sucks" or other anti-M$ comment on slashdot.
Unfortunately, lawsuits are expensive, but the most likely result will be some sort of disclaimer or the site simply removing the offensive (whether true or not) comments.
So let me get this (lewrockwell.com) straight. What you're saying (lewrockwell.com) is that (lewrockwell.com) doctors (lewrockwell.com) are pure evil (lewrockwell.com)?
Can someone please explain to me how this is any different than someone posting a bad review for a book on, say Amazon.com? Or is it that Amazon does in fact receive subpeonas to remove those reviews that can be categorized as libel or slanderous and we, the public, don't hear about it?
I have a great doctor who has been retired for probably 15 years. He's old school and treats me and my family with respect and friendliness. He's available 24/7 by phone (home, office, cell, pager) and he's called me back at bizarre times when I've had problems. All my friends are blown away by the stories I have of his service.
Guess what - your doctor is probably behind the times and you'd get better outcomes if you were being treated by a whippersnapper from a good medical residency program with a couple years of practical experience.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
I think these doctors have every right to sue, and win the cases against many of the online commentators. Sites like lasikfraud are misleading to the public and could lead to poor healthcare decisions. However, I ( and hopefully the judicial system ) have no problem with, and encourage, intelligent reasonable feedback on doctors and hospitals; that is useful to everyone. It seems most of the lawsuit targets are just unhappy people who start flames which intentionally mislead and unfairly damage reputation. Such things are definately and correctly NOT protected by the first ammendment.
-- Checking emails and kicking cheats `till the day I die.
It's bound to come up, so let me head this question off at the pass:
Q: Why don't the physicians post their side of the story and let the public decide who is more correct?
A: The docs cannot simply post their side of the story on a patient's blog in response to the complaints. HIPAA's privacy provisions generally prevent physicians and their staff from doing so.
In the court of public opinion, only patients have a voice. It's little wonder that some docs might choose to reply via the official court system, because they have no other recourse.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Congratulations, asshole: now everyone after you has to wait even longer.
My wife schedules each patient a reasonable amount of time for the problem that they're calling to see her about. On occasion, some of those problems turn out to be more complex and urgent than they expressed over the phone. Given that her alternatives are:
- Spend the extra required time to treat that patient, or
- Tell them, "sorry, your allotted time is up. Please see the receptionist about scheduling more next month."
Which would you pick, and why? Would you give the same answer if your problem was the one that's taking longer than expected?Believe it or not, the vast majority of doctors would really like to stay on schedule. Given that the nature of their job is troubleshooting systems owned by users who aren't experts at explaining their problems (which anyone reading Slashdot should understand), that just isn't always possible.
In short, don't be a dick and make matters worse. A lot of the doctors I hang around with have an "n strikes" rule: screw them over n times without a legitimate excuse, and suddenly expect to find that all your appointments are at 6:30am or 7:00pm, whichever is least convenient for you. Is that really a battle you want to fight, particularly since if you weren't already sick you wouldn't be seeing them in the first place?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure that the Non-Disclosure agreement is entirely a one-way contract.
The Doctor is bound to not disclose information to 3rd parties (except within the pre-defined bounds of their privacy policy). The patient is certainly free to discuss the details of his or her healthcare with anyone they wish.
I really don't understand what non-disc agreement would ever be in place that would stop a patient from discussing his medical care with 3rd parties. The patient OWNS that information.
In some states (USA) there are anti-SLAPP statutes that permit a defendant to dismiss quickly and receive attorney fees and costs.
The anti-SLAPP motion (generally) requires the case be brought as a result of a right to petition (ie. complaint to a court or government) or an issue of public concern and that there is not a great likelyhood of success. For more information go to www.casp.net or http://www.barbieslapp.com./
SLAPP stands for Strategic lawsuit against public participation.
Fight Spammers!
That's an interesting correlation. The more the government has gotten involved in health care and health insurance industries, the worst the quality of the service has gotten.
It is in everyone person's right to criticize bad service, and the threat of libel lawsuits should not be as powerful.
Luckily for We, The People, libel is notoriously difficult to prove. The malicious intent to misrepresent and damage must be demonstrated. This is tough to do when frustrated people are just bitching. Even if what they are saying is WRONG or misleading, if they're saying it honestly, they're mostly in the clear.
When you have a State-sanctioned power [lewrockwell.com] to treat others, it shouldn't stop you from giving your best, especially in life or death situations.
And yet, the greater your actions are governed and sanctioned by the state, the greater your propensity to do a shitty job.
I've been to other doctors and wish I had the time to complain. Dirty exam rooms, gossiping about other patients, staff that works more like DMV workers than health professionals.
An interesting comparison - health care to the various incompetant sectors of public service.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
I wrote an Amazon.com book review for a programming book that was less than flattering. I posted the review under my real name.
The author of the book Googled me, found my email address and then contact me to complain. I found that a little strange.
The best way to find a good physician is to ask a nurse for a referral. Nurses in hospitals work with many physicians, and have definite opinions about them. And they share those opinions with fellow nurses. This method has never failed to help me find a good, intelligent, caring physician, whether a specialist or general practitioner.
If God had meant for man to see the sunrise, He would have scheduled it later in the day.
Answer: "They're fucked."
I think it's really shitty that the average person can't go and check ratings of healthcare workers and institutions. Believe me, a lot of shit isn't reported. A lot of incompetence is hidden. And unless the AMA starts weeding docs better, the only recourse the average Joe has is to gamble with his health and sue if need be.
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
"if the Physicians will have to constantly watch their back against disgrunted people posting online, their quality of service might suffer."
If physicians know that their patients have limited access to recourse against them, I am certain that quality of service would suffer.
"If Patients who may be not be satisfied due to a combination of myriad factors start using the Web primarly as a means to get back at the doctors, what is going to stop the Doctors to retaliate likewise by releasing confidential health details about their patients if they are not satisfied with the patients for example? "
Ethics, and public outcry over lack of them.
How long do you think it would be before major news outlets report on a doctor releasing private medical information of a patient?
How long after that will it be until the doctor is penalized or has their license revoked by their state medical board?
'Most Importantly, if a patient visits a doctor, they enter automatically into a non-disclosure agreement although no legal documents need to be signed."
Not true at all. A treatment agreement != a non-disclosure agreement. There is no NDA unless it is expressly agreed. While a state medical board may require physicians to protect patient privacy, the patients themselves are under no such obligation. Many doctors' offices require you to sign an NDA before they'll treat you (often not each time, but rather, a blanket NDA to cover all visits). Also, these NDAs may not cover truthful criticism of a doctor's practice. I, for one, would never sign an NDA requiring me to keep my mouth shut if I have a bad experience.
If, as a physician, you believe you have an NDA covering all aspects of your practice with any patient you treat, you should get some legal advice.
"My end point is that this is a delicate issue and must be handled according to set protocols and procedures."
Often, a patient can have a bad experience with a doctor, even though no sanctionable behavior occurred. The patient should still have the right to inform others of their experience -- this is, after all, what word-of-mouth is.
Perhaps patients should not be allowed to recommend doctors to their friends and family? Instead, patients should have to check for formal commendations of good service.
Libel is still illegal, and is subject to prosecution. But honest communication of experiences, not covered by an NDA, are legal, just, and necessary for best consumer protection.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I sued and lost. Judge ruled I didn't have a leg to stand on.
Not in England it doesn't. If a newspaper there publishes pictures proving that a rich man is a closet transvestite, he can still sue them for libel and win.
It's 2005, how could such a rumor possibly damage a person in this day and age?
I mean, are there even any rich English men who are not transvestites?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Why was parent modded troll? It's accurate in many cases. There have been many reports of doctors who f*ck up royally, sometimes costing lives; they get quietly 'offered' a package to leave the hospital, and resume practice somewhere else. Kind of like bad Catholic priests.
The old boy networks should not be tolerated.
ERROR 144 - REBOOT ?
"You can't have meaningful, productive free speech with perfect anonymity"
You can't have real free speech without anonymity.
If only because people speaking anonymously are often speaking anonymously because the other party/person is significantly more powerful.
You don't have freedom of the press if you can't anonymously criticize the government. Think about it... a thoughtful, representative government doesn't care, a corrupt one will crush anybody who says something they don't like.
If I put up a website that says my Chevy-Ford sucks, here's all the repairs its has, and don't buy one. Chevy-Ford may threaten to sue me. And because our legal system is geared heavily against individuals, I really have no forum unless I can be anonymous.
It is about time that the medical community was put in check. As far as I can tell there is a culture of protected ineptitude in the medical profession. There are many great doctors, and there are many poor doctors, and there isn't much a patient can do to determine which is which. The medical boards are more akin to a union or religion, and don't help to protect the public at all.
Most doctors I've seen practicing in recent years prescribe whatever new drugs that are promoted to them, usually in the form of free office pens and advertising leaflets. There doesn't seem to be much understanding of the patient or the underlying causes or anything like that. Maybe I'm confusing medical research with medical practice here, but there seems to be a bit of a disconnect. Some doctors I've encountered seem incapable of figuring things out. They can't explain their thought process or answer questions clearly. They're about as sophisticated as an average car mechanic. The medical community must be able to be improved.
If you have a terrible experience and you can't talk about it, then how will this ever get sorted out? If the claims were truly libelous (damaging and false) then the doctor's suit is reasonable... but I have a feeling that some doctors would like to avoid valid criticism. Sorry, but I think the patient's right's trump the doctor's. Hopefully enough of these anonymous sites can be successful that it shakes things up.
Cheers.
Generally negligence is excluded. This means that if you consciously or unconsciously lied, they can deny coverage.
Simplified, negligence is when you do something wrong. Gross negligence is *knowingly* doing something wrong.
Umbrella liability is not a license to be an asshole. It's frankly not worth it in my view. It makes you a target since you now have deep pockets. First thing a lawyer is going to want to know is the policy limits on the target of a lawsuit. If he/she hears about an umbrella policy, they'll be gunning for the whole amount.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Sites like this can be useful for frank discussion of the merrits/failings of a person or company, but they are also frequently abused.
My partner is a professor. He has complained to me about ratemyprofessors.com, where students who are disgrunteled for getting bad grades can write very derogatory and misleading things about their teachers. The site makes no attempt to assess truth, and there's no opportunity for the professor to respond.
This pattern of website gives a sense of anonymity and can be more about freedom from responsible speech rather than freedom of speech.
Yes, my partner could probably find out who made which comment and sue for slander or libel, but that seems like such an extreme measure. Maybe people should sue though. Many people would not post the things they do if they thought they would actually be held responsible for their comments.
Yes, it is government's fault, partially.
When government sets the licensing standards, of course the wrong people will get a hold of a license to practice medicine. Why not allow independent licensing boards (as was the case in the past) offer licensing of their doctors? Underwriter's Laboratories does a great job of making sure lamps and toasters are safe, why can't Doctor's Underwriters compete with United Doctors League in licensing their members as "safe?"
A licensing board is only as good as its members. If the board doesn't revoke the license of a member for an error or a crime, the board is useless. Government licensing is much harder to revoke. I've been to my state licensing board (actually had a hearing today regarding a sales tax payment short I made a year ago) and I couldn't believe how easy it was for me to walk out of there with no penalty and no worry. They were so busy with other mundane problems that I just fell through the cracks.
Honestly, do you want the same people that take your driver's license photo be the people that hand out licenses to your doctors? Do you really think good doctors will give up their practices to be the licensing committee with government pay?
Well I have other doctors to see too...
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Libel is written, Slander is spoken.
In most states, you can search for your doctor and see their list of malpractice suits, medical board disciplinary actions, and a record of any crimes for which they've been convicted.
Facts, not hearsay.
"The advanced societies of the future will be driven by competing systems of psychopathology." -JG Ballard
So, doctors shouldn't be sued by patients, but patients should not be allowed to sue doctors.
Gotta love the hypocrisy of the conservative agenda (tort reform).
The truth is, if it came down to a choice, I'd vote for the little girl who will need $15 million in medical care to keep her alive for 40 years over a doctor who's upset by a bad review. But I suppose a $250,000 cap on punitive damages that keeps her alive for.. a few months.. is good enough.
If conservatives truly cared about lawsuits and the medical community, they would work with Democrats to allow drug reimportation and bring drug prices down, which would create a more competitive market and lower the needs of those types of patients.
The truth is, $15 million is a lot. But believe it or not, that's how expensive our system is.
But of course, it's the health care industry and drug companies that contribute mostly to conservatives, so we need to make sure they make billions --- even if it's at the cost of people in need.
Sorry, doctors, my ears are plugged on this one.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Careful now. Can they be sued?
If a doctor is always an hour behind...
Thats the point.
If someone is always late paying bills, showing up, or whatever, that is a psychological problem, obviously not a money problem or a time problem because if they are always behaving that way then the money and the time is a constant and the only variable is the person.
If they are stating *facts* or clearly stating that its a personal opinion, it should be clearly legal to post the information.
If the doctors prevail, its one more strike against freespeech.
Now, if they are *lies* then more power to the Doctors.. and no, i couldnt get to it to read the article.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
My wife schedules each patient a reasonable amount of time for the problem that they're calling to see her about. On occasion, some of those problems turn out to be more complex and urgent than they expressed over the phone.
On occasion? Well, your wife is a much more considerate doctor than any I've ever seen, then. Every doctor I've ever been to is always running late unless I'm one of the first appointments of the day (which is what I try to arrange, actually).
The cause is obvious, and related to what you said, but you didn't take it far enough. You say your wife tries to schedule a "reasonable" amount of time. Since it's obviously impossible to estimate the amount of time each patient visit will take with 100% accuracy, the best she can do is to pick times that average out to be correct, that is, to schedule appointments so that roughly 50% of the patients require less than the allotted time and roughly 50% require more.
The first problem is, that does not work. Without getting into the math, it's very simple to prove with basic queueing theory that, assuming a normal distribution of error, she'll be behind schedule more than 50% of the time. The only way to ensure that, most of the time, patients *don't* have to wait is to systematically overestimate the time required per-patient.
The second problem is that if a doctor were to systematically overestimate patient treatment times, and schedule accordingly, statistics guarantee that the doctor will have a fair amount of down time between patients, most of the time. It's those bits of down time that provide the slack needed to catch up when even the overly generous estimate turns out to be inadequate.
Now, I think that would be the considerate way to run the business. Estimate in 15-minute increments, schedule in 20-minute increments, and plan on having time to read a journal for a few minutes after each appointment. But I've never yet met a doctor who does this. Why? Money. Downtime between patients means fewer patients in a day and that means a lower income.
Going back to the theory, if the doctor's goal is to optimize his/her time and income, not the patients' time and convenience, then the best thing to do is to ensure that there is never any slack. The doctor can still schedule "reasonable" times, but should make sure to schedule a few patients in very quick succession early in the day, so that the waiting room is never empty. It's to the doctor's benefit to be running behind schedule, because that way there's never any dead time. A little mathematics could probably even work out the minimum number of patients that should be waiting, on average, to guarantee a given (low) probability of dead time.
This is what happens in every case I've seen. They don't actually do it by scheduling three patients at five-minute intervals for 15-minute appointments first thing in the morning, but instead they systematically underestimate the appointment durations, then throw in the occasional empty block later in the day to prevent the backlog from getting too deep. The net effect is the same... they're perpetually behind and therefore perpetually busy, at the expense of their patients, who almost always have a long wait.
I think the best solution is a combination of slightly more conservative estimates in scheduling (accepting that it will mean a little dead time and a couple less patients per day) and communication. Determine a target maximum waiting time and if you get far enough behind to begin approaching it, start notifying patients that they should arrive a few minutes later for their appointments, and even ask each of them if they would prefer to reschedule for another day, which will open up a block of time to absorb the delay.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
DR.Oogle http://doctoroogle.com/ has over 19,000 dentist reviews for 50 major metropolitan locations across the US. Only 13% of those reviews are critical or negative in nature. Considering that a dentist visit can, and often is, a scary experience - 13% is LOW! Yet, WSJ chose to concentrate on the "juicy" stuff - subpoenas, threats, lawsuits etc. while ignoring the fact that the bulk of the patient feedback is positive.
The problem with doctors' "appointments" is you can only estimate how long a particular patient will take. With the advent of insane cost-cutting measures, we're under enormous pressure to see as many patients as possible, so we have to make best-guesses. And know what? Sometimes we're wrong. Sometimes, a patient has a more complicated or time-consuming case, and we have to go a bit "over". Yeah, that's built into an average day, but you never quite know. And if you don't like it, you're welcome to go to fee-for-service doctors who will clear their schedule for you... but leave you with a very high bill.
To rebut the ridiculous (and barely coherent) comparison to a doctor and "someone that makes up mnemonic rhymes to monty python songs for 4 years": you're a fricken' idiot. If you think rote memorization is all the skill it takes to be a good clinician and to pass all the hurdles involved in Allopathic (M.D.) or Osteopathic (D.O.) training, you're welcome to try yourself. You'll quickly find out you can't get through medical training on memory.
And there's nobody stopping you from being your own physician.
I welcome morons like you making insulting arguments about a profession you apparently can't comprehend. To me, they are basically big bags of hot air that shoot off their mouths without thinking.
I agree with you... there's definitely some really crappy doctors out there, who have no business being doctors at all. However, the profession has a way of weeding the truly awful ones out. They either lose their licence to practise, or are ousted by rising malpractice insurance costs. In PA, the situation is ludicrous: even a good doctor can pay up to $100,000 or more in malpractice insurance costs every single year!
My point, ultimately, is that being a doctor is an incredibly hard job, and it's easy for patients to overlook that. Anyone who's ever worked at any job has made some sort of mistake... for a doctor, even a tiny mistake could cost lives, or put him out of the medical profession for good.
And that's why this online complaints thing annoys me: as far as accountability is concerned, it's extremely one-sided. The doctor is always held fully accountable for whatever he says and does (and greedy lawyers are more than willing to twist words and actions to suit their case) while the online complainers share no such accountability. Though I agree there should be some sort of forum for public discussion, those public complaints about individual doctors should be verified with a real name and SS# on file at the site, and should sign the equivalent of an affadavit that they're telling the truth. That would cut down almost completely on the frivolous and untrue complaints. It's all about accountability.
Andrew Lenahan http://www.starblind.com/
Who is the peer in "peer-reviewed" who would review a medical journal who isn't also a doctor?
Fact is, any "study" published in a medical journal tooting the horn of, well, *medical professionals*, done by those same medical professionals, deserves a healthy amount of skepticism.
But that isn't what your link talked about. In fact, it doesn't address the actual skill of the doctors in question at all. According to the article, the complaints are summarized as:
"63 percent found that older physicians were less likely than younger doctors to conform to current standards."
and
"14 of 19 studies (74 percent) looking at performance found that older physicians were less likely to adhere to therapeutic standards compared with younger doctors."
In other words, older doctors are less likely to rigidly follow practices exhorted in medical school, and instead do what they think is best. Which apparently seems to be some sort of heretical idea, at least where younger doctors (or Harvard Medical School) is concerned.
Also note this piece of fucking silliness:
" One study found that patients were more likely to die of a heart attack if their physician had been in practice for more years."
The "study" which is being referred to was thoroughly debunked as soon as it hit the journals. Why? Because what the study failed to mention is that *older doctors tend to have older patients*. Of *course* older doctors have more patients that die of heart attacks; their clientele is older and more at risk!
Given that at least one of the sources of the meta-study you linked to was proven to be a crock of horseshit right from the get-go, I remain firmly skeptical of the results of the meta-study, as well as their interpretation of those results (i.e., "doctors who don't rigidly follow practices taught in med school are worse than the fresh, wet-behind-the-ears puppies who do").
Gotta wonder if this is just bad science, or if someone is promoting an agenda.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Are patients allowed to "badmouth" their doctors online? How is this different (apart from scope) from "word of mouth"?
Are doctors not allowed recourse to protect they "good name", particularly those with private practices where this would essentially equate to their livelihood?
There is merit to most of the comments made above.
However, keep in mind that there are many factors that are not immediately obvious to many of the posters here:
1) Medicine *is difficult*. You cannot become a doctor simply by memorising rules for 4 years (or 6 years in most countries). Unfortunately, human minds and bodies refuse to obey fixed rules and often there are more exceptions than there are rules. While many illnesses may be both straightforward and easy to diagnose and treat, invariably one has to deal with patients where things are not clear, where the diagnosis is not obvious, where the standard treatment for specified condition may do more harm than good; being supremely skilled at invasive procedures does not guarantee that a patient may not come to harm from a complication.
There is no "black or white", no definitive test to diagnose everything, not golden therapy to treat everything.Situations like these can only be dealt with using knowledge and drawing from personal and collective experience. That does mean unfortunately that it's not always possible to get it right - wrong diagnoses are made, wrong treatments are given, complications may occur from a procedure - but that does not necessarily make a doctor "bad". For the patient though this may be catastrophic, something which doctors are acutely aware of.
But if an error occured in good faith, should that doctor be splattered on a web page?
2) As with any profession, there are people in it for the money only and will stop at nothing to get it. However, in most cases this is not what affects patients. In many european countries (i can't speak for the USA) doctors are put in a position where they have to deal with rare and serious conditions outside of their expertise and/or are made to do so in extremely stressful environments (long hours, being paged by 6 different people simultaneously etc). Medical and para-medical staff do their best to cope, in most cases successfully, but occasionally problems will arise from this.
Just think: If you were trying to calculate your taxes after working for 36 hours and people kept phoning you and knocking on your door and your 3-year old kept screaming - how well do you think you'd do?
3) A surprising number of patients seek medical attention without any real physical disease; anxiety is a common theme and can lead to great problems in the patient-doctor relationship. It is tough for medical/nursing staff to deal with very anxious people, as they are treated as emotional punching bags and it can be tough for these patients as anxiety often cannot be "talked away"; they really feel unwell and cannot understand why. At the same time this does not mean that there is nothing wrong with the patient. To put it bluntly - just because they're mad doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with 'em.
But not infrequently it is people with high degree of anxiety that are the most vitriolic against medical staff, in spite best efforts from both nurses and doctors.
These are just a few points from a medical perspective. One of the greatest problems in patient-doctor relationships is communication. Problems here are what frequently will lead to litigation for various reasons. But the problem may not necessarily lie with the doctor, as communication is a 2-way street (for example, i make it common practice to repeat myself ad nauseam as it can be startling what some people just don't retain or refuse to take in [denial]).
Of course, there are doctors not up to the task and perhaps should not be practising medicine for whatever reason. But I believe that these should be investigated by a professional body to assess their
They had a fan site for a local shopping mall. The mall developers tried to shut them down (for some inexplicable reason), so as part of defending themselves they registered several "sucks" domains including http://www.taubmansucks.com/ (Taubman is the name of the developer).
/. my hits from them are higher than normal :)
The guy was trying to defend himself for a long time and started to get dug into a hole, but eventually he found pro-bono representation and ultimately they won. Maybe there's some useful ideas for you in there.
Yup. I've done lots of research about gripe sites because of that C&D.
On a side note someone at farmers reads
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
New Oxford American Dictionary:
/chiefly law/ the truth about events as opposed to interpretation
fact |fakt|
noun
a thing that is indisputably the case [examples cut]
- (the fact that) used in discussing the significance of something that is the case [examples cut]
- (usu. facts) a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article
-
No indication that a fact can be false or disinformation.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Heck, if it's simple, I can go to a pharmacist and get something for a headcold. I want a doctor who'll catch that cancer one visit earlier or run that extra test to rule out a possibly fatal disease, or know that there's a better drug for me than the one he used to prescribe.
The best possible option is to get a middle-late career doctor who also teaches and works at a good medical school/research hospital. They have to keep up with the latest and greatest and have the experience to evaluate the material.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
"i would add one to this: the concept of need. Lateness on the part of a patient is more inconsiderate than lateness on the part of a doctor."
I disagree. If you expect me to be on time to appointments then I expect to be seen on time. This does not count being shown into an exam room to wait even longer.
"A doctor who has made you wait will make sure that you get the care that you need, and if YOU'RE ever the one who's in need of the extra time, you'll be glad that they'll disrupt the schedule for it."
Well, you got it partly correct. Sure they will fit you in. Now getting the care you need is another matter altogether....
I don't have a problem if a doctor is late due to an emergency. But I expect to be told about it ASAP by the staff. Same if the doctor is running more than a few minutes late. I have been to offices that were typically an hour behind within an hour of opening and others that were rarely behind. I have had other doctors reshedule my appointment by mail because they had to leave town suddenly-pushing my appointment back another month (and people think Canadian medicine sucks?!?)
In summary, a lot of doctors are inconsiderate. And the doctor's time is NOT more valuable than my own.