eagle
In this era of "reviews", many people are accustomed to open the review platform to look at "word of mouth" and reviews before dining or entertainment. There are users' scores and evaluations on the merchant's service, taste, environment, etc. The comprehensive score becomes the measure of merchants. Benchmarks of good and bad.
Now hospitals have also become one of them. On the review platform, whether it is a "third-grade" hospital or some specialized hospitals, they are all on the list, but some of the relatively well-known hospitals have low star ratings. Also frequently "hit".
(January 18, Rule of Law Daily)
Evaluation is a means of supervision, and consumers' right to supervise is protected by law.
Article 15 of the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests stipulates that consumers have the right to supervise the work of goods and services and the protection of consumer rights and interests.
Whether it is a business or a hospital, consumers have the right to evaluate it.
Rational and objective evaluation by consumers is conducive to perfecting and improving hospital work.
Regardless of whether the hospital actively enters the review app or is recommended by the platform, this is an important way for the hospital to listen to the opinions of patients, improve hospital services, and bridge the relationship between doctors and patients.
Reports show that consumers or patients' negative comments on doctors are mainly concentrated in the short time to see a doctor.
In this regard, we have to look at it from multiple perspectives: First, are such negative reviews objective, fair and true?
Have you listed the factual basis and institutional basis?
Second, hospitals are fundamentally different from other businesses. Is the evaluation of consumers constructive?
Third, do consumer negative reviews go beyond common sense and legal red lines?
The consumer's evaluation of the evaluation object is subjective and limited, and is also affected by other factors.
For example, the large number of patients in the hospital and the long waiting time for patients are both reasons for the hospital, but it cannot be completely blamed on the hospital.
If the patient chooses to see the doctor in the afternoon, I am afraid the waiting time will not be long.
When patients are concentrated in the morning, it is difficult to avoid waiting in line.
Therefore, it is unfair for consumers to give bad reviews to the hospital.
Of course, hospitals need to reflect on guiding and diverting patients.
The health department should effectively solve the problem of crowded patients from the perspective of hierarchical diagnosis and treatment.
On review apps, since merchants and platforms will provide coupons, group purchases and other services, this will somewhat influence consumers' ratings of platforms and merchants.
The functions of hospitals on such platforms are limited to displaying addresses and user evaluations, so consumer evaluations will not be affected by commercial positive factors.
From this point of view, it is not necessarily scientific to evaluate hospitals that provide public services and businesses that provide preferential services.
Hospitals should have special comment platforms or comment columns, and set up corresponding comment functions according to the characteristics of hospital services.
Hospitals should objectively look at the various evaluations of consumers, and should treat bad reviews with the mentality of "if there is something, then it will be improved if it is not."
As a consumer or patient, when looking at bad reviews of hospitals and doctors on review apps, you can refer to those with factual basis, while those without factual basis should be ignored.
Whether it's a hospital, doctor, or consumer, say "no" to malicious negative or abusive reviews.
Because this "bad review" is not only unfair, but also suspected of infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of hospitals or doctors, it should be curbed.
For example, some patients refer to the hospital as a "garbage hospital", which is suspected of infringing on the hospital's reputation. If the reputation of the hospital is damaged, the hospital can protect its rights and interests through judicial channels; Illegal violation of the doctor's right to reputation; patients can secretly take pictures of doctors or videos during consultations and post them online, which is suspected of violating doctors' privacy rights.
Such "reviews" have crossed the legal red line and should be punished accordingly. Otherwise, it will dampen the enthusiasm of doctors to work and bring about conflicts between doctors and patients.
Hospitals and doctors can accept reasonable and legitimate criticisms and suggestions from patients, but this does not mean swallowing up malicious comments.
"Dianping" platforms should be responsible, filter illegal comments in a timely manner, and not become an "accomplice" of infringers.