Dishonest Physician Reviews: Challenging Physician Online Reviews and the Appeals Process

IF 3.5 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Medical Systems Pub Date : 2023-12-21 DOI:10.1007/s10916-023-02022-2
Ria Malhotra, Anika Reddy, Rohan Jotwani, Michael E. Schatman, Neel D. Mehta
{"title":"Dishonest Physician Reviews: Challenging Physician Online Reviews and the Appeals Process","authors":"Ria Malhotra, Anika Reddy, Rohan Jotwani, Michael E. Schatman, Neel D. Mehta","doi":"10.1007/s10916-023-02022-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Physician reviews influence how patients seek care, but dishonest reviews can be detrimental to a physician practice. It is unclear if reviews can be challenged, and processes differ and are not readily apparent. The objective of this observational study was to determine the ability to challenge dishonest negative reviews online. Commonly used websites for physician reviews as of August 2021 were utilized: Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, Zocdoc, Yelp, and Google Business. Each review platform’s website was tested for leaving a physician review and process of appeal and possible removal of a negative review. The process for appeal and the steps involved in posting and appealing a review were determined, whether individuals are verified patients and criteria for verification, how physicians can respond, and the process of appealing false or defamatory reviews.Any individual can leave reviews by searching for a physician’s name or practice and visiting their profile page and can then provide a rating and written review of their experience with the physician. Many require verification to prevent suspicious activity but not proof of a medical visit, allowing significant potential for inaccurate review postings. Posting a review can be done by anyone without verification of a visit. It is challenging for physicians to remove negative online reviews, as most review platforms have strict policies against. This review concludes that physicians should be aware of their online presence and the steps that can be taken to address issues to mitigate adverse effects on their practices.\n</p>","PeriodicalId":16338,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Systems","volume":"98 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-023-02022-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Physician reviews influence how patients seek care, but dishonest reviews can be detrimental to a physician practice. It is unclear if reviews can be challenged, and processes differ and are not readily apparent. The objective of this observational study was to determine the ability to challenge dishonest negative reviews online. Commonly used websites for physician reviews as of August 2021 were utilized: Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, Zocdoc, Yelp, and Google Business. Each review platform’s website was tested for leaving a physician review and process of appeal and possible removal of a negative review. The process for appeal and the steps involved in posting and appealing a review were determined, whether individuals are verified patients and criteria for verification, how physicians can respond, and the process of appealing false or defamatory reviews.Any individual can leave reviews by searching for a physician’s name or practice and visiting their profile page and can then provide a rating and written review of their experience with the physician. Many require verification to prevent suspicious activity but not proof of a medical visit, allowing significant potential for inaccurate review postings. Posting a review can be done by anyone without verification of a visit. It is challenging for physicians to remove negative online reviews, as most review platforms have strict policies against. This review concludes that physicians should be aware of their online presence and the steps that can be taken to address issues to mitigate adverse effects on their practices.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不诚实的医生评论:质疑医生在线评论和上诉程序
医生评论会影响患者寻求医疗服务的方式,但不诚实的评论会对医生的执业造成损害。目前尚不清楚能否对评论提出质疑,而且质疑过程各不相同,不易察觉。本观察性研究的目的是确定质疑网上不诚实负面评论的能力。研究利用了截至 2021 年 8 月常用的医生评论网站:Healthgrades、Vitals、RateMDs、Zocdoc、Yelp 和 Google Business。对每个评论平台的网站都进行了测试,以了解如何留下医生评论、上诉流程以及是否可能删除负面评论。确定了上诉流程以及发布和上诉评论所涉及的步骤、个人是否是经过验证的患者和验证标准、医生如何回应以及对虚假或诽谤性评论的上诉流程。任何个人都可以通过搜索医生姓名或执业地点并访问其个人资料页面来留下评论,然后可以提供评分和对其就医经历的书面评论。许多网站要求验证以防止可疑活动,但不要求提供就诊证明,这就为发布不准确的评论提供了很大的可能性。任何人都可以发布评论,而无需核实就诊情况。对于医生来说,删除负面在线评论是一项挑战,因为大多数评论平台都有严格的禁止政策。本评论的结论是,医生应了解自己在网上的存在,并采取措施解决问题,以减轻对其业务的不利影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Systems
Journal of Medical Systems 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
1.90%
发文量
83
审稿时长
4.8 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Systems provides a forum for the presentation and discussion of the increasingly extensive applications of new systems techniques and methods in hospital clinic and physician''s office administration; pathology radiology and pharmaceutical delivery systems; medical records storage and retrieval; and ancillary patient-support systems. The journal publishes informative articles essays and studies across the entire scale of medical systems from large hospital programs to novel small-scale medical services. Education is an integral part of this amalgamation of sciences and selected articles are published in this area. Since existing medical systems are constantly being modified to fit particular circumstances and to solve specific problems the journal includes a special section devoted to status reports on current installations.
期刊最新文献
Self-Supervised Learning for Near-Wild Cognitive Workload Estimation. Electronic Health Records Sharing Based on Consortium Blockchain. Large Language Models in Healthcare: An Urgent Call for Ongoing, Rigorous Validation. Why Clinicians should Care about YouCare and Other Wearable Health Devices. A Joint Message from the Outgoing and Incoming Editors-in-Chief.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1