Dr. Grumpy is rude. His staff is rude. His wait time is always over an hour. He's incompetent. He's malicious.
Well, it's hard for me to objectively address most of these charges, but I can say that the
longest I've ever kept a patient waiting is 23 minutes.
I hate sites where you can anonymously rate doctors. Anyone can put up a scathing review, even if they didn't actually see you. Maybe they're pissed off that you don't take their insurance, or wouldn't give them the extra 40 Percocets they wanted.
The sites don't check to make sure that they really saw you. For all you know you're being rated by a person angry that your kid beat theirs in the school spelling bee (don't tell me people aren't that petty. They are.). And because we're doctors, we can't really defend ourselves. After all, we took an oath to keep your health concerns in confidence.
Let's look at this the other way: what if I were to create an online public forum where doctors could rate patients
by name. Of course, while we'd be encouraged to write only about our own patients, who's to make us do so? What if you're someone who dinged my car at Costco this weekend, or the barista who can never get my order right? I could use the site just for the hell of it.
"Probably a drug seeker. I wouldn't touch her."
"Very whiny and needy. Calls staff all the time."
"Dumb as a rock. Can't remember his meds."
"Argues incessantly about his crappy $15 co-pay".
"Needs to buy a toothbrush and some deodorant."
Best of all, we doctors could put it up anonymously. You'd have absolutely no way to know who wrote it (you could guess). In fact, even if I never saw you, and say, just didn't like you based on meeting you somewhere, I could write whatever I wanted. And you'd have absolutely no legal recourse. Sure, you could post something in your own defense, but, do you have time for that?
Of course, that would never happen. Besides being unethical, it's frankly illegal for a doctor to do that. Patients, however, have a free reign to anonymously say whatever the hell they want about us. Even if they've never actually seen you and are making it all up.
The other problem that affects these rating sites is simply human nature. When something goes well, we expect it and say nothing. But when something goes wrong, we get angry and want the world to know. So the reviews are predominantly written by people pissed-off enough to take the time to find a ratings site, create an account (maybe several), and write one or more bad reviews. The people who thought the doctor was awesome may outnumber them 100 to 1, but won't write anything. So, as in everything else, a small but vocal minority can drown out the truth.
Besides, it's so much more fun to write a bad review than a good one. Most of us learned this in high school, whether through writing a book report, gossiping about others, or reading Perez Hilton.
For these sites, and those who contribute to them, I think we have to keep in mind the words of the finest restaurant critic in history, Mr. Anton Ego:
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and theirselves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so."