On the portal«ПроДокторов», the main requirements for reviews are their information content, uniqueness and reliability. In this article, we will talk about the third, but not the most important requirement.
By reliable review, we mean a review written by a real patient or his close relative/family member about the real experience of going to a doctor or clinic.
We believe that medicine is not a field where any kind of PR or anti—PR is acceptable. Buying a refrigerator based on hyped reviews can have significantly fewer consequences than the risk of contacting a doctor who cannot and does not know how to cope with a particular disease.
Unfortunately, there are many clinics and doctors who do not share our position and try to use dishonest ways to improve the rating: order reviews from reputation management companies, place orders for fake positive reviews, leave reviews on their own or even for the patient without his knowledge, etc. We consider all these methods unacceptable and strongly oppose their use. Therefore, we cannot just take their word for it and are forced, if in doubt, to ask the authors for confirmation of the written information.
And in order to fight those who are trying to deceive our readers, we have developed a program«Отзывы без обмана».
In our country, the legislation is designed in such a way that in the vast majority of cases only the author of the review can confirm the accuracy of the information: medical secrecy prohibits clinics and doctors from transmitting data about their patients to us. Therefore, confirmation of the review is requested exclusively from its author. It is important to note that we do not publish documents based on reviews (except in situations where the author wants it himself), but in any case, it is also up to the author himself to provide confirmation or not: if desired, he can show his medical documents to anyone he deems necessary.
Let's look at a few cases where feedback confirmations may be requested. Note that the decision on the need for confirmation is based on a comprehensive analysis of both the text of a particular review, as well as the profile of its author and the actions of other users on the same page.
Case 1: the review coincided with the fake review for some of its parameters.
Each review has a set of parameters: by whom / where/ when / how it was written. And at the first stage of verification, the system analyzes these parameters and gives a signal if something coincides with those reviews that we have already recognized as unreliable. Then the author is asked for a document confirming the fact of contacting a specialist (if there is a review of the doctor) or a clinic (if there is a review of the clinic). We described in detail what documents can confirm the admission in the article, Which document can confirm the authenticity of the review.
At the same time, if the clinic uses a MEDLOCK, then information about whether an appointment has taken place is displayed in the reviews. And this information can be used to confirm it instead of requesting a document.
Case 2: there is defamatory information in the review.
ProDoctorov not just a website with reviews, but the media. This obliges us to check the information that can be classified as defamatory before posting. That is, information about the incompetence of the doctor, harm to the patient, violation of the law, etc. In this case, documents are requested on the facts that fall into the defamatory category or are related to them.
For example, the author writes about an incorrect diagnosis, implying that another doctor made a different diagnosis. In this case, diagnostic reports from both specialists will be requested.
Case 3: There is reason to believe that two or more reviews were left by the same person and/or about the same patient.
The opinion of each patient is important and can only be taken into account once. Despite the number of visits to the doctor, at the moment the opinion about the specialist is the same. Therefore, the review can be supplemented or changed, but it is impossible to leave two reviews from one patient. If such a case is suspected, a document confirming the appointment is requested, in which we ask you to leave open, for example, the patient's initials in order to make sure that the patients are different. A fragment of another identifier may also be left (for example, part of a card number or an SNILS number), this is decided on an individual basis, based on which documents are provided by the authors and what information is reflected in them.
Based on the same case, we ask for similar confirmations when a relative writes a review for an adult capable patient, who is highly likely to leave a review about his visit to the doctor.
Case 4: according to reviews about this doctor (clinic), someone else's documents were sent.
The author may be asked to open the data in the document, or to confirm that he is this patient. Most often, users send some kind of government-issued document. For example, a medical policy or SNILS. Although we do not publish such documents, we always recommend that you cover the number and/or series with a photo beforehand.
If the review is not written by the patient, but by another person (parent, spouse), confirmation of kinship or marriage may be requested.
Case 5: according to reviews about this doctor (clinic), forged documents were sent.
In such a situation, an additional document may be requested, which is less likely to be forged. This may be a request for a receipt, a screenshot from «Госуслуг»or an extract from a medical card (if we believe that the doctor is forging the conclusions), or a photo/screenshot of the letter of guarantee.
Case 6: there were cases when the review on the page was written for the patient without his knowledge by an employee of the clinic
In addition to the admission document, a photo of the patient holding the document may be requested.
Case 7: Submission of documents processed by editors.
If there is reason to suspect that a person has changed certain information on the document, they may ask you to take a photo from a different angle or shoot a video.
Case 8: Leaving a review by a user who is under 14 years old.
Since we only accept reviews from those users who have already turned 14, when leaving a review about an appointment with a pediatrician by the patient himself, we ask you to open the age or month and year of birth in the admission document.
I would like to note that 80% of requests for reviews are related specifically to the first and second options: a simple confirmation of the fact of admission or confirmation of defamatory information. About 18% are requests related to the third option. The rest account for about 2%. Cases 4-7 are very rare, and we sincerely wish there were none at all. But as long as there are those who are willing to deceive our users, we are forced to look for options in order to prevent such reviews from being published.