Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Published 17 March 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b1033
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b1033
Margaret McCartney, columnist for Financial Times weekend
1 Glasgow
margaret@margaretmccartney.com
The UK government has signalled its support for rating sites with the decision to set up its own through the NHS Choices website. Neil Bacon (doi:10.1136/bmj.b1030) believes they provide essential feedback for doctors, but Margaret McCartney is concerned that the potential harms are still unclear
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
The health minister Ben Bradshaw thinks doctor rating sites are a great idea. "I wouldnt think of going on holiday without cross referencing at least two guide books and using Trip Advisor. We need to do something similar for the modern generation in health care."1 If we can ask the eaters of pizzas and drinkers of coffee for their ratings of the staff, why should doctors escape the judgment of their clients? And so, with a nod to patient choice, and no apparent need to consider the evidence, NHS approval of websites to rate your doctor was stamped.
There is a wealth of information about how patient opinion is useful, even essential, when considering how services and research should be shaped and delivered. But the belief that doctor rating sites will promote trusting doctor-patient relationships or help patients find medical practitioners with a particular style are untested and potentially dangerous
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses