search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
REACTING THE RIGHT WAY Dr. Pho offers five tips to handle on- line reviews:


1. Listen to or read the review, 2. Take the conversation offline, 3. Read the fine print on a review site, 4. Ask more patients to rate you on- line, and


5. Don’t sue over a negative review. Seeing what patients say can pro-


vide valuable insight into not just what they think of you but also what they think of the entire experience. “If you look at negative reviews, it’s


not necessarily the doctor himself or herself,” Dr. Pho said. “It could be the support staff. It could be the nurse. It could be the medical assis- tant. It could be the fact that there’s not enough parking. It could be the fact that the magazines in the waiting room aren’t up to date. And it’s im- portant for physicians to be aware of problems in a practice that they may not have been aware of previously.” Eye Institute of Austin always tries


to reach out to any patient who posts a negative review, Mr. Bickling says. “The more positive reviews we have,


the shout-outs from patients about specific individuals or specific func- tions of our practice, it’s always great affirmation and a way for us to see that, hey, we’re doing the right things. And typically, if it’s a negative re- view, it may just be something where we missed the mark service-wise. It could be something as simple as we had a really long wait time one day.” Taking the conversation offline has another implicit meaning: Don’t re- spond online to the treatment-related specifics of a negative review. If the physician can identify the patient who posted a scathing review, he or she can reach out privately to the patient to address and, if necessary, rectify the problem the patient had. That’s preferable to getting into a damaging, public back-and-forth that could also introduce potential patient confidentiality violations.


36 TEXAS MEDICINE March 2017


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60