GP leaders to ask Google to remove ‘harmful’ reviews of practices
UK GP leaders have voted in favour of asking Google to remove reviews for GP practices, amid concerns that they are ‘inappropriate, misleading and harmful to patient care and staff wellbeing’.
LMC representatives from across the UK called for a petition to Google to extend their policy of blocking reviews of schools to all UK general practices, at their conference in Belfast today.
They also said that the BMA’s GP committees across the four nations should press for the development of ‘fair and proportionate’ mechanisms for responding to public criticism of general practice that ‘protect patient confidentiality, professional standards and staff safety’.
The motion also pressed for the removal of numerical ratings and league-style comparisons of GP practices from other public-facing platforms.
Proposing the motion, Dr Matt Greenwood, from West Sussex LMC, said that the reviews ‘undermine trust and relationships needed for good patient care’.
He said: ‘They also undermine your workforce. General practice needs a stable workforce. Patients making negative online reviews – defaming staff – creates a hostile working environment, and an environment that causes poor staff retention.
‘Currently, we have no control over this very influential and damaging online environment. We are silenced from a right of reply due to confidentiality.
‘As GPs, we do not want patients being put off contacting their GP surgery, or staff acting on fear over clinical need.
‘This ask is achievable. Schools have successfully lobbied government. Google have removed ratings from online searches for schools. Exactly the same principles and more apply to UK general practice.’
Gateshead LMC chair Dr Paul Evans told the conference that the reviews mean that ‘people can say what they like without fear’ and this affects GP staff morale.
He said: ‘They can say libellous things, they can make accusations that are completely baseless with no consequence to themselves. That’s a one-way fight.
‘This can have a real impact. Most of our staff live on the same streets as our patients, some of our GPs live on the same streets as our patients.
‘This affects morale. This affects them being able to go to the supermarket, it affects them taking their kids to school. This is problematic for them and makes real impact upon their lives.’
The tech giant has already disallowed Google Maps reviews for primary and secondary schools in the UK and Ireland, following a successful campaign by a head teacher and senior leaders representing about 50 schools.
Pulse exclusively revealed that earlier this year that one LMC was planning to start a campaign to get Google to disallow reviews for GP practices, in a bid to curb online abuse towards staff.
The motion in full
AGENDA COMMITTEE TO BE PROPOSED BY WEST SUSSEX: That conference believes that public rating systems and consumer style online review scores for GP practices, including Google reviews, are inappropriate, misleading and harmful to patient care and staff wellbeing, and calls on the four national GP committees to work collectively to:
(i) press for the removal of numerical ratings and league style comparisons of GP practices from public-facing platforms CARRIED
(ii) seek formal recognition that confidentiality obligations prevent practices from correcting inaccurate, incomplete or unbalanced public commentary CARRIED
(iii) press for the development of fair and proportionate mechanisms for responding to public criticism of general practice that protect patient confidentiality, professional standards and staff safety CARRIED
(iv) petition Google to extend their policy of blocking reviews of schools to all UK general practices. CARRIED
Related Articles
READERS' COMMENTS [5]
Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles
Agree wholeheartedly.
Google review abuse often by those we decline med3s, or CDs, and very visious, calling out reception staff & key workers by name.
Also the Operose types of “GP” surgery with no doctors in sight get 5 star whilst they play the game, whilst real doctors focusing on patient care
Very sensible idea. Surely Streeting before he buggers off and becomes Prime Minister could see his way to doing this at least.
The emerging discussion around a “dentist-style” GP model reflects a reality many doctors have recognised for years: the current NHS GP structure may no longer be financially or operationally sustainable. That is not ideology, but arithmetic.
However, hybrid or private systems are not a panacea. NHS dentistry already illustrates the risks: widening inequality, fragmented continuity, distorted incentives, and declining public trust. Having also worked within the US healthcare system, I have seen how market-driven medicine can subtly shift care from covenant towards transaction.
Good medicine frequently requires disappointment. It requires saying “no” to unnecessary antibiotics, excessive investigations, dependency-forming medications, and unrealistic expectations. Yet in private systems, the pressure to satisfy, reassure, retain patients, and generate favourable reviews can gradually erode the moral independence upon which good medicine depends. The patient may leave satisfied while the medicine itself becomes poorer.
This is why it is contradictory to advocate for hybrid or subscription-based practice while simultaneously objecting to public reviews of practices, as published in very same edition of GP Pulse. Market-oriented systems inevitably bring greater transparency, scrutiny, competition, and reputational accountability.
If reform is now inevitable, then it must at least be approached honestly and with full awareness of what may ultimately be lost as well as gained.
Public are perfectly capable of understanding the limitations of on-line reviews, as prejudiced reviews are everywhere. Who will adjudicate which criticisms are legitimate?
This is an attempt to silence criticism, which will simply move elsewhere in Social Media, and risks further inflaming those deprived of a public outlet for their frustrations.
“good medicine frequently requires saying no”
Translation
“Stupid Proles cannot be trusted to make the right decision, fortunately with my superior intellect I know best”