Doctors complain about rating website

05 Aug 2008

Doctors have complained to the Information Commissioner about the doctors’ rating website iwantgreatcare.org.

The site www.iwantgreatcare.org was launched last month to enable patients to post comments about individual GPs and patients.

However doctors have complained that the site is in breach of the Data Protection Act by including their names on its database and refusing to withdraw the information. Now the doctors have taken the case to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

A spokesperson for the ICO told EHI Primary Care that it had been contacted by doctors about iwantgreatcare.org.

She said: “We have received some complaints and we are looking into them at the moment.”

The website’s founder, Dr Neil Bacon, has also been sent a letter from media lawyers Carter-Ruck expressing doctors “grave concerns about the potential for inaccurate, irresponsible and defamatory allegations being published on the website.”

The letter, sent on behalf of 37 doctors, questions the effectiveness of the systems the website has put in place to prevent inaccurate information being published.

Magnus Boyd, a partner with Carter-Ruck, told EHI Primary Care that since the letter was sent and its existence publicised his clients had been inundated by doctors wanting to associate themselves with its sentiments.

He added: “The letter is really a warning shot across the bows. The real problem here is that the site has presumably been advised that it should not have a moderator as there is then a defence of 'innocent defamation' as they can say they weren’t aware of the defamatory comment until a doctor makes them aware of it. That puts all the onus on the doctor which simply isn’t fair. A doctor cannot be expected to monitor a website seven days a week when they are working and going on holiday and so on.”

Boyd said his clients were keen supporters of patients’ rights to make genuine complaints and give feedback.

He added: “My clients are not against fair comment but accuracy matters.”

A spokesperson for iwantgreatcare.org told EHI Primary Care that doctors who felt that their details were being held against the Data Protection Act should use the 'report this review' link on the site. He added: "This is the most direct way to raise concerns."

Last week GP newspaper Pulse reported that a hospital doctor had conducted a survey of more than 300 GPs and hospital doctors about the website. It found that 99.1% of doctors were aware of the site but 89.7% said they were “very unhappy” that the public could make anonymous comments and 98% said they did not feel the site would help patients make informed choices about their doctor.

A spokesperson for iwantgreatcare.org told Pulse that they were delighted to see such high awareness of the site and that 95% of feedback from patients had been highly positive.

Fiona Barr

Reader's Comments

Macarthy revisited?

05 Aug 08 21:00

As a patient (not a GP) it seems inappropriate for individuals to be able to attack the professional reputation of someone who is identified, potentially recruiting others to do the same, without themselves being willing to be identified

Similar issues have been raised previously about unwarranted attacks on teachers (nor am I one), and I see from last week's press that an unprovable accusation which never makes it to court will still remain on the accused's CRB record and probably prevent re-employment forever, wasting society's investment in their training & experience

Perhaps everyone should re-read Arthur Miller's "The crucible" and see where this 'logic' leads? . . .

Where does IWGC get the names of doctors listed on their website

10 Aug 08 12:20

There are a large number of doctors listed by name on the website without reviews, but other doctors I checked are not there. The founder of the site was/is involved with Doctors.net, and I have a doctors.org.uk email address: three others I checked who are not listed do not have such an address. Was this site populated from Doctors.net? If not, how were the names obtained? I do not recall giving permission for my name to be posted to a different list when I joined Doctors.net!

What else is there

stressfreedave@hotmail.com

12 Aug 08 08:53

It is not often I stick up for doctors, but even I think this website idea is wrong and is open to abuse.

I think it would have been better if people could post a comment as if it was a feed back form, that way the only people that see the comment are those runing the site.

Whilst it is true that some people might post information they know to be wrong, there will be others with a genuine reason to post comments. People say that there are formal complaints procedures people can follow, but they do not seem to know just how hard it is for patients to fight their way through that procedure (for a patient is is one of the most hostile environments to be in and even the health proffession were accused by an inquire of being more interested in protecting repretations than protecting patients). I tried to make a complaint through the complaints procedure regarding breaches of confidentality and knowingly and willingly causing harm to patients but I had to get a confession from the GP before the GMC would even contact the GP about the complaint and the police would not deal with it because it was up to the GMC to deal with it.

This website is not ideal, but considering the alternitive patients have, what else is there?

Interesting lack of response from site o

25 Aug 08 20:02

Patient Opinion was very prompt in explaining its policies on the comments posted on its website. I note that comments 2 and 3 have elicited no response from the website owners for this website. Why?

Doctors complain about rating website

Macarthy revisited?

Where does IWGC get the names of doctors listed on their website

Similar question to 2

What else is there

Interesting lack of response from site o