One of the newer trends is doctors using social networking sites like Sermo and iMedExchange.
Likened to a “virtual doctor’s lounge,” physicians can ask questions and speak freely knowing their posts will not be seen by, or released to, the public.
Often times, questions about patient management are asked, and it’s nice to have a quick response to queries by a variety of specialists.
In this piece from Medical Economics, some wonder about the liability risk about asking such questions. Although Sermo downplays the risk, attorneys say that a “user who gives bad advice on the site could find himself involved in legal proceedings if his name were to come out during a malpractice trial of the doctor who followed his advice,” similar to a curbside consult.
So, with professional organizations offering little guidance on how to proceed, it’s probably best to be careful about what you post, and how you act on the information gleaned from these sites.
Related posts:
- Blogs, social networking sites, and physician advice
- How doctors should deal with physician rating sites
- Health care social networking basics for doctors
- Physician-patient social networking
- How to make money from physician discussions
- Do doctors who use social media prescribe more medications?
- Do some doctors take on more risk than others?
{ 4 comments }
There have been stories of medical students having difficulty with interviews because of their personal content on Facebook. I think that clinicians need to be cautious when posting information on public social networking sites. Closed sites that also provide anonymity are a nice haven.
This is ludicrous. A curbside consult is not an official consult. If you take another’s advice without verifying it yourself, then the reprocussions are yours alone. Where’s the personal responsibility? If you want to share liability, then get a real consult.
No patient doctor relationship with the plaintiff. General advice has First Amendment immunization, like a book or article.
There are other problems with these sites. Site owns the content. If you disclose a medical device for opinions, site may own it.
It takes 5 minutes to register a real doctor’s name without his knowledge. Then the unknowing doctor is responsible for any lawsuits. So, copy a news article in its entirety, and paste it. The newspaper sues for copyright infringement. The unknowing doctor owes the newspaper $250,000, plus has to re-imburse the site for its legal expenses.
Docs thinking of joining should take 5 minutes to read the terms of service. Pretty harsh and shocking.
In this litigious age, it’s best to remember that the internet never forgets, and that search technology always gets better. Politicos and media are also notorious for having long memories, or at least good search expertise.
Chuck Brooks
FutureWare SCG
Comments on this entry are closed.