Posts

SOCIAL MEDIA REVIEW OF MEDICAL PRACTICE: DEFAMATION SUIT

/in /by

medico-legal[1]

The Australian legal system is slowly catching up with issues caused by reviews of personal experiences with businesses on social media sites.

One of the myriad of challenges created by this rapidly growing trend is the ability for users to make statements either anonymously or under a pseudonym. In some cases the claims may be demonstrably false or misleading or downright defamatory. Business proprietors have faced great difficulties in getting assistance from the review sites to investigate the source of the reviews. Even when evidence has been provided that a claim is fallacious, getting it removed can be a long and arduous process. In some instances business owners have incurred substantial legal costs and loss of income, not to mention emotional stress.

Things appear to be changing, as indicated by the case of a Melbourne dentist who has been given permission by the Federal Court to serve Google to attempt to find out the personal details of an anonymous account that left a bad review about his practice.

As reported in The Guardian:

Federal court justice Bernard Murphy gave leave to seek from Google a document that would contain the account’s subscriber information, name of users, the IP addresses that logged into the account, phone numbers, other metadata and other Google accounts that might have used the same IP address at a similar time as the review was left.

It is the latest in an increasing number of defamation cases brought against Google and other online reviewer sites, which have been reluctant to remove bad reviews.

Google has argued that defamation threats can be used to suppress information that might help customers steer clear of bad businesses, and that it should only remove reviews with a court order.

It followed a judgment in the South Australian Supreme Court last week awarding $750,000 in damages to Adelaide barrister Gordon Cheng for an October 2018 review left in English and Chinese on Google, claiming Cheng gave “false and misleading advices”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/14/court-says-melbourne-dentist-can-serve-google-for-user-details-over-bad-review

 

 

Online physician reviews don’t reflect responses in patient satisfaction surveys.

/in /by

A follow-on to our previous article:

Physicians who receive negative reviews online do not receive similar responses in rigorous patient satisfaction surveys, according to new Mayo Clinic research.

“Our study highlights the disconnection between industry-vetted patient satisfaction scores and online review comments,” says Sandhya Pruthi, M.D., an internal medicine physician at Mayo Clinic, who is the senior author. “Patients need to be aware of these distinctions as they make decisions about their health.”

“Physicians also need to be aware, as they manage their online reputations.”

 

Read the full story: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180402123254.htm

 

 

Patient Experience: “The Waiting Room versus the Treatment Room.”

/in /by

96bacffe31ba4d995c4f7a86e95849dd[1]

Whilst researching for a medical conference presentation, I came across some interesting information regarding the causative issues behind complaints posted in online patient experience forums.

The study conducted by Vanguard Communications and published in the (U.S.) Journal of Medical Practice Management, essentially concluded that 96% of complaints faulted the “Customer Service” not the “Quality of Care”. 

“An analysis of nearly 35,000 online reviews of doctors nationwide has found that customer service – not physicians’ medical expertise and clinical skill – is the overwhelming reason patients complain about their healthcare experiences on the Internet.” 

“The study reveals that only 1 in 25 patients rating their healthcare providers with two stars or fewer is unhappy with his or her physical examination, diagnosis, treatment, surgery or health outcome.” 

“The other 96 percent of patient complaints cite poor communications, disorganization and excessive delays in seeing a physician as the cause for dissatisfaction.”

Complaint Factors

“Our study uncovered a torrent of patient allegations of doctors running behind schedule, excessive waiting time to see a provider, billing problems, indifferent staff, and doctors’ bedside manners. The nearly unanimous consensus is that in terms of impact on patient satisfaction, the waiting room trumps the exam room.”

 

The study’s author does make a valid point that online reviews of specific physicians or clinics don’t provide a scientific or fair sample upon which to draw conclusions and base decisions. Practices that aim to provide high standards of customer care generally employ their own direct feedback process to monitor satisfaction and improve performance.

The study was designed to gauge to what degree patients were focused on customer experience issues (which are systemically fixable) versus medical treatment.

As such, the evidence appears conclusive that problems patients are most likely to share online, overwhelmingly relate to the “Administrative” functions and interactions of medical practices.