Yelp and Zagat - More Cautionary Doctor Review Tales

“We have no way of knowing how accurate the information is. Choosing your doctor using these sites is as effective as throwing darts at photos of all of them on a wall.”

I disagree. I am very glad that I can share my experience on RateMDs. It’s fully documented so you can see for yourself how accurate it is.
Adventures in Cardiology

Actually, Dan. You have proved my point. If I go to RateMDs, I see dozens of doctors with only one or two ratings. There’s no disclosure whatsoever on who did those ratings. I have no way of knowing if it was the doctor him/herself or a spouse or child NOR do I know if it was a disgruntled patient who wrote the review.

I know you are trying to promote the site because you have some sort of tie to it (proving my point once again) — I see that your Adventures in Cardiology is posted on the RateMDs site.

I value your input because you’ve proved that, in fact, there is very little objective, useful information for patients to use on these sites.

That said, I do believe that someday, when doctors have a dozen or more reviews, THEN we’ll be much more likely to be able to draw some conclusions.

Trisha

Sometimes you have to read patient reviews with a huge ball of rock salt, not just a grain of salt. These subjective reviews can be so misleading because there is often no way of validating the review or the reviewer.

I agree with the above.

[Pls note, however, the comment about 'free speech' is erroneous: No where in the issue at hand has government stepped in to charge or arrest anyone for saying something.]

I disagree. I move around for work from time to time and I, for one, am very appreciative of doctor reviews. For example, I have a thyroid problem and I prefer to take Armour thyroid which some doctors don’t like to prescribe (for whatever reasons) and Mary Shomans Stop The Thyroid Madness site really helped me find a fantastic doctor. That was after seeing 4 endos on my own and having a nightmare of a time.

People write comments about how the doctor treated them, how long of a wait they had, whether the doctor took their concerns seriously, whether the doctor was open to a treatment plan they suggested, whether the doctor appeared to be a very clear thinker etc.

Yes, while most of those things are subjective they are still useful. It would be nice if all doctors were kind and caring and treated each and every one of us with an open mind and heart as unique individuals with unique problems and had a genuine desire to help us but the fact of the matter is, so many doctors offices are now run like mills. I have had instances where the doctor never even came into the room. They just poked their head in the door, chatted for 5 minutes and went to see another patient.

While I understand that their job may be difficult and draining, people usually see doctors because they aren’t feeling well, because they are scared, because there is something wrong. We are then forced to wait for extended periods of time for an appointment that lasts all of 10 minutes, often with a doctor who appears to be very hostile and not interested in hearing your problems and usually will tell you something like lose weight, get more exercise and don’t sit around for too long.

I mean perhaps I am jaded from having so many negative experiences but that seems to be the norm for me and the best experiences I have ever had have been off of review sites.

If a review says something like Great doctor! and 5 stars, yes, I can see ignoring it. But if the review goes into great detail, and there are many reviews saying similar things. Like how the doctor takes the time to listen to you or how you came in with a complex problem and the doctor really worked with you on it or things like the doctor calling you at night to check up on you. These are all things that would help me make my decision. I hope more people write doctor reviews, both good and bad.

Hearing that doctors sue people for negative reviews just sickens me and I would never want to see a doctor that would do something like that. Also, people have so many negative experiences with physicians and are afraid to write about them out of fear. I wish there was a way to prevent that but it would be somewhat difficult.

I think reviews in general are a great idea whether they be on Amazon.com or on physician review sites. Of course there is the possibility of fraud whether it be on Amazon or Yelp or wherever but I think if you have no information about a physician reviews are a very good place to start. Some information, in my opinion, is always better than none.

This is an irresponsible article.

Thank goodness for doctor ratings sites. There is no other way for consumers to know about their doctor before it is too late. The Medical Boards keep everything secret. Also, doctors can no longer use the “you’re the only one who had this experience” routine.

Doctors have remained dangerously in the shadows, and have kept an iron grip on information flow. They are freaking out because now they will have to account for themselves.

The good doctors with nothing to hide welcome review sites. Doctors who need improvement, but have good intentions, will welcome the opportunity for improvement.

If only more people reviewed their doctors, and less doctors planted glowing reviews about themselves.

It is a fallacy that people post vengeful or irrational or petty reviews. The only irrational reviews are the slobberfests doctors plant about themselves.

Moreover, wait time is considered an important component of a doctor review, so much so that Healthgrades focuses on wait time. The author has a peculiar snarky attitude about this.

Keep on reviewing, folks. It really makes a difference.

***Oh, and we would NEVER see a doctor who sued over a review, or demanded that patients sign an agreement that they won’t review online. Big. Red. Flag.

Bruce,

Irresponsible?

Quoting from your own comments:

If only more people reviewed their doctors, and less doctors planted glowing reviews about themselves. and The only irrational reviews are the slobberfests doctors plant about themselves. …. those are among the exact points I’ve made to tell you why I don’t believe these sites work well yet.

Waiting times… how long is too long? If we had one person judging every doctor, then we would have a benchmark. But we don’t.

This is a cautionary tale. In the perfect world, I would agree with you — ratings would be consistent, only made by patients themselves, and people would rate both the good experiences and the bad.

But they aren’t, they aren’t and they don’t. I stand by my suggestion. Go ahead and rate doctors to your heart’s content, but unless a doctor has a dozen or more ratings (but not too many!) they won’t be very useful to you.

You can learn much more about how to weigh and balance these sites here.

HI Trisha,

Your list of doctor reviews site is a very valuable resource. But first, a disclaimer: I am designing yet another doctor review website Actually, a friend, who is also a doctor, asked me to build a site that is doctor-friendly. He thinks review sites are here to stay and can be beneficial to both doctors and patients.

First, there is no way for doctors to stop patients from publishing their opinions whether it is in a review site, a blog, in Facebook, or in Twitter. Even if a doctor sues me for saying my opinion, my friend and friend’s friends will just spread my story and use every website they can get their hands on to show that I am a nice person and my doctor is the big bad wolf. This is the power of the Internet and no one can stop it.

Unfortunately for doctors, patients who had bad experience are more motivated to give a review than a satisfied one. So my friends’ suggestion is doctors should work with their satisfied patients to counter the negativity.

For example, make it easy for your satisfied patients to give reviews. If a doctor is really good, he will have tons of positive reviews. While they can’t satisfy everyone all the time, the amount of positive reviews can easily dwarf a couple of bad reviews. Another way to look at it is if a doctor is not good, he will not have that many positive reviews anyway. If Doctor A has 2 positive and 0 negative and Doctor B has 50 positive and 1 negative, that 1 negative review will not matter anymore.

I agree with Bruce on this:

“The good doctors with nothing to hide welcome review sites. Doctors who need improvement, but have good intentions, will welcome the opportunity for improvement.”

I think the forward-looking doctors will take advantage of the technology to improve themselves and their relationship with patients. The not-so-good ones will always complain

Most review sites are driven by patients or some random stranger. What if it is driven by doctors and only patients can access it and no random stranger? Will that make it more credible? What do you think are the upside and downside of this approach?

HI everyone : )

I have to throw my 2 cents in here. Just had a horrible experience with a doc and his office and found out that similar stories have come up about this doc as well. All of thiese people wrote reviews on various sites ie : vitals (who cater to the docs and will edit out whatever the doc wants). rate md ( he had the reviews taken down and now you have to log in to say anything, healthgrades (he also had them taken down). I know more than 3 patients who have had similar issues with this doc and yet all of their ratings were :”mysteriously” removed and replaced with :”He’s awesome, best doc ever” . Ummm how do you spell FAKE. This is the U.S. and our ancestors fought and lost their lives for the liberty and freedom of speech and :”Editing” and/or gagging a review even if it is for a precious Doctor should be a no brainer here. I agree that a physician that has nothing to hide will be happy to read anything feedback etc that could possibly help him/her to byild a better practice for the patient and his/her piece of mind. The docs who are all up in arms over this are guys like Anthony Leazzo in Plainfield Illinois who writes his own reviews, uses untrained staff for medical/surgical procedures,treats women like they are below him, treats patients ike they are just stupid,makes life and death mistakes with medication,has front desk(non-clinical,untrained) clerical people performing vitals. Umm this is outrageous and not to mention just wrong. I said it and that’s my right to osay it. I guarantee that little by little this character will have more and more complaints and the state will have to step in. A family practicioner is not a surgeon. Pay attention to that peeps who plan on seeing this D.O. He’s a family practicioner running around his office with scrubs on performing :”procedures” whatever that means. yikessssssss. That’s my review and I’m sticking to it. He’s scary.

Mackenzie *nodding* we must be on the same page. I had to kick that guy to the curb because he was with Corwin medical and that place blew big time. YOu did sau Anthony Leazzo? He was with Corwin medical group in Plainfield Illinois. That group was and is all messed up. He wasn’t any better and he was with thim for a while. I know enough that he was :”On the run”. He has some office now and thinks that nobody will remember the JUNK SERVICE he gave to patients over at Corwin. PLEAZZZZZE. He can go to any office , any new building, any whatever, he still is a D.O. who dreams and fantasizes over being a surgeon/M.D. and compromises his patients with his delusions. RUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN. Kenzie, if you only knew. He is a real wanker.

I agree with Bruce that this article is irresponsible, and I would add chilling. What doctors (including those who have written here) do not seem to realize is that there are many individuals who are victims of medical malpractice but NEVER receive any recompense for their injuries. The top reason: contrary to what you may have heard, it is extremely difficult and expensive to file a legitimate malpractice suit, much less a non-meritorious one. Attorneys will very often not take a case on contingency, even where the liability is clear, because there is not a likelihood of a substantial recovery.

I speak from my own experience because I was a victim of medical malpractice by a urologist, but the several attorneys I consulted agreed that medical liability was unquestionably there and there was permanent injury, but they did not believe the potential payout justified taking the case. They all readily agreed to take the case, but not on a contingency basis; strictly hourly, with anywhere from a $25,000 to $35,000 initial retainer. I dare any doctor to tell me that a colleague who commits malpractice and ruins the life of a patient will get away with his malpractice simply because the patient cannot afford to pay huge legal fees.

Patient’s son complains; Duluth doctor sues
Mark Stodghill – 06/12/2010
http://www.DuluthNewsTribune.com

A Duluth physician is suing the son of a former patient for publicly criticizing his bedside manner. Dr. David McKee, a neurologist with Northland Neurology and Myology, filed the lawsuit, which was made public Friday, in St. Louis County District Court. McKee alleges that Dennis Laurion of Duluth defamed him and interfered with his business by making false statements to various third parties, including the American Academy of Neurology, the American Neurological Association, two physicians in Duluth, the St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services Advisory Committee and St. Luke’s hospital, among others.

Laurion claims that any statements he made about the doctor were true and that he is immune from any liability to the plaintiff. He referred questions to his Duluth attorney, John Kelly.

McKee is asking for more than $50,000 in damages. The doctor was paged Friday but didn’t return a call seeking comment. He’s being represented by Minneapolis attorney Marshall Tanick, who in a phone interview alleged that Laurion defamed his client in several ways, including posting negative reviews of McKee’s work on various websites. “The basis for the lawsuit is the defamatory statements that were made on websites and to other sources,’’ Tanick said. “However, by no means does Dr. McKee want to in any way prevent or affect any kind of communications that may be made to the Board of Medical Practice or any other regulatory agencies. The purpose of the lawsuit is to prevent defamation being made on the websites and through other sources.’’

Kenneth Laurion, 85, a Navy combat medic in the Solomon Islands during World War II, suffered a hemorrhagic stroke and spent four days at St. Luke’s hospital from April 17-21. He recovered from his condition.

McKee alleges that Dennis Laurion called him “a real tool.’’ McKee also alleges that the defendant made false statements about him to others including: McKee “seemed upset’’ that Kenneth Laurion had been transferred from the Intensive Care Unit to a ward room. McKee told the Laurions that he had to “spend time finding out if [the patient] had been transferred or died.’’ McKee told the Laurions that 44 percent of hemorrhagic stroke victims die within 30 days. McKee told the patient that he didn’t need therapy. McKee said that it didn’t matter that the patient’s gown was hanging from his neck with his backside exposed. McKee blamed the patient for the loss of his time. McKee didn’t treat his patient with dignity.

Defense attorney Kelly said it was a tense and emotional situation for the Laurion family. “They were worried about Dad and the doctor comes along and, from their point of view — of what they saw and what they heard — they felt that the doctor didn’t act appropriately toward the father,’’ Kelly said. “So, among other things, they saw fit to report it to the hospital and to the Board of Medical Practice — which they have every right to do under the patient Bill of Rights — and they get sued.’’

Kelly said his client did post ratings of McKee on some websites but said he asked to have them removed, and they were. The defense attorney thinks that the lawsuit is without merit. “I think it’s an unfortunate incident of someone attempting to punish a person who has spoken out of concern for a family member,’’ Kelly said.

According to the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice website, McKee has had no disciplinary actions brought against him.

A Duluth physician who sued a patient’s son for defamation was in court Thursday as the son attempted to have the case thrown out.

Dr. David McKee, a neurologist with Northland Neurology and Myology, filed the lawsuit against Dennis Laurion of Duluth in St. Louis County District Court in June. McKee alleges that Laurion defamed him and interfered with his business by criticizing him by making false statements on websites and to various third parties including other physicians in Duluth, the St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services Advisory Committee, St. Luke’s hospital and professional organizations.

Laurion’s father, Kenneth, now 85 and a Navy combat medic in the Solomon Islands during World War II, suffered a hemorrhagic stroke and was treated by McKee at St. Luke’s hospital April 19. He recovered from his condition. However, he and his family allege that McKee was rude and insensitive to the patient in his actions and comments.

The defendants claim that when McKee didn’t find Kenneth Laurion in the Intensive Care Unit, he said: “I had to find out whether you had transferred or died.” McKee confirmed in deposition that he made the statement, but claimed it was a jocular comment meant to relieve tension.

McKee is asking for more than $50,000 in damages. Laurion claims that any statements he made about the doctor were true and that he is immune from any liability.

Duluth defense attorney John Kelly argued that his client’s statements were substantially true, were statements of opinion and couldn’t be demonstrated to be false.

“He is standing up and speaking out for his father. That is his motivation … in the hope that something gets done,” Kelly told the court.

See more: http://www.superiortelegram.com/event/article/id/191109/publisher_ID/36/ Published February 10, 2011

Source: http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/197679/publisher_ID/36/

Judge tosses Duluth doctor’s suit against patient’s family

By Mark Stodghill, April 28, 2011

A judge threw out a lawsuit today filed by a Duluth physician who said he was defamed by a man who publicly criticized his bedside manner.

Dr. David McKee, a neurologist with Northland Neurology and Myology, alleged that Dennis Laurion of Duluth defamed him and interfered with his business by making false statements to the American Academy of Neurology, the American Neurological Association, two physicians in Duluth, the St. Louis County Public Health and Human Services Advisory Committee and St. Luke’s hospital, among others.

Laurion was critical of the treatment his father, Kenneth, received from McKee after suffering a hemorrhagic stroke and spending four days at St. Luke’s hospital from April 17-21 last year. Kenneth Laurion recovered from his condition.

Dennis Laurion claimed that any statements he made about the doctor were true and that he was immune from any liability to the plaintiff.

In his 18-page order dismissing the suit, Sixth Judicial District Judge Eric Hylden wrote that looking at Laurion’s “statements as a whole, the court does not find defamatory meaning, but rather a sometimes emotional discussion of the issues.”

Hylden addressed the fact that Laurion posted some of his criticisms of McKee on websites. “In modern society, there needs to be some give and take, some ability for parties to air their differences,” the judge wrote. “Today, those disagreements may take place on various Internet sources. Because the medium has changed, however, does not make statements of this sort any more or less defamatory.”
Hylden concluded his order by stating that there wasn’t enough objective information provided to justify asking a jury to decide the matter.

Laurion was relieved by the court’s ruling.

“My parents, who are now 86, my wife and I have found this process very stressful for the past year, since my father’s stroke. There was never just one defendant,” he said. “We’re grateful that Judge Hylden found no need for a trial.”

In his suit, McKee alleged that Laurion made false statements including that McKee “seemed upset” that Kenneth Laurion had been transferred from the Intensive Care Unit to a ward room; that McKee told the Laurion family that he had to “spend time finding out if [the patient] had been transferred or died;” that McKee told the Laurions that 44 percent of hemorrhagic stroke victims die within 30 days; that McKee told the patient that he didn’t need therapy; that McKee said it didn’t matter that the patient’s gown was hanging from his neck with his backside exposed; that McKee blamed the patient for the loss of his time; and that McKee didn’t treat his patient with dignity.

According to the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice website, McKee has had no disciplinary actions brought against him.

“I’m very disappointed by this court’s decision because as far as I can see the only avenue that I can see that I had to respond to this overwhelming attack was through the courts, and for the time being it appears that avenue has been closed without me ever getting a chance to present my evidence,” McKee said.

McKee said he hadn’t had a chance to confer with Marshall Tanick, his Minneapolis attorney. He said he will do so before he decides whether to appeal the decision. Tanick told the News Tribune he had not yet seen the decision and couldn’t comment on it.

“Dennis Laurion is a liar and a bully and a coward,” McKee said. “He knowingly made false and malicious statements about me to a total of 19 different professional and medical organizations, regulatory agencies and websites. He often used false names and attributed his statements to fictitious third parties. I’ll make the observation that every one of those organizations that was required to make an official decision or take an official action either determined that the statement that he made was so ludicrous that it required no response from me at all or decided that his complaint had no merit.”

Laurion’s attorney John Kelly has been in another trial this week and said tonight that he had not yet read the decision.

“I’m grateful that the judge saw things our way for our client’s sake,” Kelly said.

Kelly was critical of McKee’s reaction to the decision.

“I think it’s regrettable that somebody would choose language of that kind in commenting on a court decision,” Kelly said. “Secondly, this case has always been about Mr. Laurion’s reaction to what he perceived to be poor conduct on the doctor’s part in relation to his interaction with his father. And he stood up and said something about that and the judge has agreed that what he said was within the bounds that are permissible under our law.”

I would not rely on these ratings to select a doctor, but I will most certainly use them to rule some doctors out. My spouse had knee surgery last week. We went to the ortho place he’s had several prior successful surgeries at. Unfortunately, neither of the 2 wonder doctors we had experience with were available without an extended wait, so we agreed to see one of the others assuming he would hold to their standards of quality care. What a mistake that was! The jerk is an arrogant bastard with a god complex. Too bad we couldn’t figure that out from the 3 whole minutes he deigned to grant us at the only pre-surgical appt. I should have figured it out when his nurse called several days after that appt. asking us to have his MRI results released to them…the results we hand carried to the appt as required, and left there. How the hell would the jerk have made his diagnoses without them, much less scheduled surgery? And it went downhill from there. If going on those sites and posting what horrible patient care he provides saves even one person from the pain and suffering my husband is going through WITHOUT pain medications because no one will return my calls, it will be worth leaving a negative review on every site I can find.

I disagree. If the website allows comments (and unlimited characters allows the reviewer to be more detailed), those are invaluable. You can see exactly why the person is happy or unhappy with the care they received. It’s too bad about the tales of deception and extortion but that’s in every area of our society.

I disagree with most of what is said in this article. Doctors without customer’s reviews can go unchecked and continue to perform substandard work with no fear of reprisal. I personally had a life changing event involving back surgery and am telling my story on just about any doctor review website I can find in the hopes of preventing anyone else from going through the same thing. And I have, in my search for those sites, come across several other patient reviews stating very similar situations to mine with THE SAME SURGEON!

So no…do not rely solely on patient reviews to choose your doctor BUT…definitely take them into consideration when choosing a doctor. One bad review…maybe…ok…..several bad reviews….well…maybe there is something to consider here.

If Trisha Torrey wants to ignore bad reviews and go to a doctor that has had several of them, well, I wouldn’t want to be her insurance company.