John Grohol: “People who rate their doctors are likely to fall into one of two categories — they either had a horrible experience with them and want others to know, or they had a wonderful experience with them and want others to know. But most people who fall in between these two extremes and have run-of-the-mill experiences with the doctor will likely never rate, because they have little incentive to do so.”
Related posts:
- Fighting back against doctor rating websites
- My take: CPOE, VistA, doctor rating websites
- Lawyer rating websites
- Zagats going into the doctor rating business
- More doctor rating follies
- Fixing doctor rating sites
- Prior authorization
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 4 comments }
I find doctor ratings sites very useful. It allowed me to discover that my medical diploma from McGill University in Montreal came from “une boite de cracker jack.” I now have a site called IrateMds.com about scifi doctors. I worry that I may be an evil Cylon or a Sith lord.
I would imagine this is equally true for
hospital-rating systems such as Press-Gainey. While their sample size is much greater than doctor-rating websites, the methodology suffers from the same selection bias. Yet Press-Gainey insists that the methodology is rigorously tested and scientifically valid. Intuitively, I can’t imagine how random phone surveys would generate equivalent data as self-directed mail-in or web-based responses for the reasons stated in the above post. As my knowledge of statistics is sorely lacking, I would welcome any scientific defense of the Press-Gainey methodology – until then, I still feel their variable survey methodology is inherently biased in favor of hospitals using random phone surveys.
I think this is true for any voluntary rating system.
True, though Press Gainey claims to be statistically valid and unbiased unlike the doctor survey websites which make no such claims.
Comments on this entry are closed.