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

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.

Fake News, Defamation, Online Reviews, and Their Potential Devastating Consequences for Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Anecdotal evidence of the exposure and vulnerability of aesthetic plastic surgeons to fake news and online defamation by a minority of vociferous patients has been accruing over the past 10 to 20 years and lurks, hidden like an iceberg, beneath our specialty. Because of acute embarrassment, it is rarely, if ever, discussed in public, and the true extent of the underlying problem remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to accurately document the true magnitude of defamation in British aesthetic plastic surgery. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was distributed to all full members of the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons in the summer of 2020. RESULTS: Forty-six percent of full British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons members responded. Over one-half had experienced denigration of their professional reputation; the most common medium reported was digital defamation. Over three-quarters of the respondents had been the subject of patient blackmail in an attempt to refund professional fees, and, most distressingly, almost one-third stated that the incident had significantly impacted their mental well-being. The majority had found help from their professional bodies to be significantly lacking. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal a torment among aesthetic plastic surgeons that has not, to the authors' knowledge, been previously recognized and requires urgent attention by professional organizations.

Negative Patient Reviews and Online Defamation: A Guide for the Obstetrician-Gynecologist.

Physician review websites can serve as a means for patients to address physician actions, both good and bad. At times, patient reviews may be negative and perceived as defamatory. Yet there are specific legal requirements that must be met for an online review to be considered defamatory. Prior cases indicate that pursuing a defamation lawsuit, although appropriate in some circumstances, is oftentimes a difficult and futile endeavor. To avoid litigation, physicians can take proactive approaches to address questionable reviews and to bolster their online reputations.

Internet Disruptions in the Doctor-Patient Relationship.

The ubiquitous access by patients to online information about health issues is disrupting the traditional doctor-patient relationship in fundamental ways. The knowledge imbalance has shifted and the last nails are being hammered into the coffin of medical paternalism. Ready access to Dr Google has many positive aspects but the risk of undiscerning acceptance by patients of unscientific, out-of-date or biased information for their decision-making remains. In turn this may feed into the content of the legal duty of care for doctors and contribute to a need for them to inquire sensitively into the sources of information that may be generating surprising or apparently illogical patient treatment choices. In addition, patients, those related to patients, and others have the potential to publish on the Internet incorrect and harmful information about doctors. A number of influential decisions by courts have now established the legitimacy of medical practitioners taking legal proceedings for defamation and injunctive relief to stop vituperative and vindictive online publications that are harming them personally, reputationally and commercially. Furthermore, disciplinary accountability has been imposed on doctors for intemperate, disrespectful online postings. All of these factors are contributing to a disruptive recalibration of the dynamics between doctors and their patients.

Doctors, Defamation and Damages: Medical Practitioners Fighting Back.

In three judgments in favour of New South Wales medical practitioners between 2017 and 2019 the Supreme Court awarded ordinary and aggravated damages for harm done to professional reputations. The decisions in Al Muderis v Duncan (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 726, O'Neill v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 655 and Tavakoli v Imisides (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 7 are considered in the context of international decisions and analysis of doctors taking defamation action arising from online publications. Reflections are provided about the repercussions of the phenomenon, its commercial justification and the inhibitions that should be experienced before defamation and injurious falsehood actions are taken by medical practitioners.

Concussion, Defamation and the Ringside Doctor.

Ringside doctors play a vital public health role in protecting fighters from the deleterious effects of concussive and other injuries which are reasonably foreseeable from the contests in which they engage. This column reviews a landmark action for defamation taken by a ringside doctor against a media organisation that published a critique of his performance of his role in a high-profile boxing bout in Sydney, Australia. It reviews the judgment of McCallum J in O'Neill v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 655 (O'Neill) and reflects on the broader significance of the decision for the role played by ringside doctors while boxing and other martial arts contests continue to be permitted by law.

"A Threat to All Texas Physicians:" TMA Backs Surgeon in Defamation Suit.

Miguel Gomez, MD's well-publicized legal fight isn't over yet. In its latest turn, the Texas Medical Association is still standing behind the surgeon as he fights to uphold a verdict against one of the state's largest nonprofit hospital systems for defaming him.

Confronting online social aggression in Hong Kong: A wake-up call.

Online bullying as a form of online aggression is an increasingly growing phenomenon that is experienced by all age groups. Apart from the use of technology, online bullying shares the same attributes as conventional bullying. This includes a power imbalance vis-a-vis the bully and the victim and the victims' feeling of helplessness. Its impact however, is greater resulting in severe psychological, social and mental health problems. Because online bullying presents a new type of challenge for lawmakers, educators and parents, there may not be a single solution to this social problem. The paper examines the existing laws in Hong Kong that may apply to online bullying, assessing its effectiveness as a means in redressing the power imbalance. It also looks at non-legal measures that can be adopted in Hong Kong to tackle the problem.

THEY SAID WHAT? REPUTATION MATTERS.

What people say online about you and your practice is important. Harsh words and missed opportunities to strengthen your interactions can reflect on your leadership skills unless you take proactive measures.