don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

I received a press release on March 2nd from a website group called RateMDs, along with a suggestion from a devoted fan of my essays that I review this website. According to the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), the Web contains seven million unique sites, 50 percent more than in 1999 and growing at about one million annually. Do NOT expect me to review new websites on a regular basis, no matter how devoted you might be to my opinions!

However, RateMDs merits a review for reasons not entirely related to the quality of the website or the considerable influence of the individual who asked me to assess it. RateMDs invites a closer look at a few issues related to judging the quality of health care, including considerations of fairness, reliability and the rights of doctors whose work is assessed.
 
To get a sense for all this, consider highlights of the press release from RateMDs. The promotion asks, "Want to find the doctor who best fits your needs?  That would be nice, if a tall order; it's clearly an ambitious come-on. RateMDs promises to "save you valuable time" and maybe more (in other words, "your life!") by checking on the punctuality, helpfulness and knowledge of doctors. Again, "them's powerful promises," as Roy Rogers' sidekick, Gabby Hayes, might have remarked. Since RateMDs is a free site without evident corporate or government sponsors, these enticements seem quite ambitious. A visit to the site, alas, disappoints in a major way. For one thing, it is only a little over a month old and offers ratings on but a grand total of 148 doctors (four in the entire state of Florida as of the first week in March, 2004). The boastful claim that "RateMDs.com is changing the way the world looks at medicine by providing patients with the unique opportunity to rate, and read about, their doctors" seems ludicrous--and so it is! 
 
The biggest problems, however, concern fairness, reliability and the rights of doctors. The latter seem to have no chances for rebuttal of complaints made against them (I assume they would not want to object to compliments). A whacko individual disgruntled over an imaginary grievance or a bully patient who makes unreasonable, impossible demands can slander one or more doctors with criticism of his or her practice at this site and the physician would have no recourse, save legal action, I suppose. How can the consumer have confidence in these statements made about doctors, whether positive or unfavorable? 
 
The site contains several sections, such as "What's New?, Forum, Most-Rated Doctors, Recent Press, Login, Recent Ratings and Help/FAQ."  The first, "What's New?" effectively provides this answer--"Not Much." That is, they have nothing to post as yet, except the promise "Coming Soon." 
 
The operators of RateMDs also run the website "RateMyProfessors.com." The latter has the exact same format but there ARE notable differences. RateMyProfessors has a datebase of 1,542,501 ratings covering 330,176 professors at 3,800 schools, and adds about 4000 ratings daily. The owners should have waited a while until they had more to offer before sending out a press release promoting this site. It's a case of "Too Soon and Too Little." When they do get around to offering a serious site worth your attention, I would suggest they provide specific criteria by which doctors should be assessed and attempt to do some kind of verification before publicizing allegations, assertions, claims or unsubstantiated critiques about doctors that may or may not be justified.

One consumer expert to whom I described this site made a trenchant observation that addresses a much deeper issue, as follows: "The bigger issue for me is whether consumers should be given the opportunity to rate their health care providers at all. Just because a doctor is on time or friendly means very little in terms of that doctor's knowledge, skill at surgery or recent educational activities. If someone is going to rate doctors, there should be a much more structured way to do it."

Good point. How many of us are qualified to rate the quality of work of an astronomer, a nuclear physicist or an airline pilot, for example? Why would we think we're qualified to critique the professional skills of a brain surgeon, radiologist or any other specialist OR general practitioner? There seems to be some brazen chutzpah at work here.
 
It would be very nice if part of the criteria invited respondents to address the issue of whether the physician or medical practice gives any attention to lifestyle issues, how they do so and whether they promote wellness attitudes and behaviors. 
 
That's my take on the matter of this attempt to rate MDs. Have a look at it and let me know what YOU think. Be well--look on the bright side.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the MEANING DOMAIN under the skill area of relationships. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell