Online Reputation Management for Doctors
17.2K views | +0 today
Follow
Online Reputation Management for Doctors
Curated and Written Articles to help Physicians and Other Healthcare Providers manage reputation online. Tips on Social media, SEO, Online Review Managements and Medical Websites
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scoop.it!

Doctors can establish their online reputation in these 2 ways

Doctors can establish their online reputation in these 2 ways | Online Reputation Management for Doctors | Scoop.it

There are two ways that physicians can establish their online reputation. The first way is to use existing physician rating sites. What physician rating sites will do is create a profile page of every single doctor in the United States. This profile will have your name, your contact information, your board certification status, your hospital affiliation, and, of course, some of them allow patients to rate doctors online.

These pages are backed my companies who are experts in search engine optimization, SEO. (That’s the science of ranking high on Google.) Unless you already have a prominent online presence, these pages that get ranked high when your name is Googled can be patients’ first impression of you online. It’s important to go on these sites, claim your profile, make sure that it information is accurate.

A second way to establish your online reputation is to create content about yourself on the web. If you look at a sample Google results page, there are studies showing where readers click on that page.


About a third of readers will click on the very first result. Another third will click on the second or third result. Fewer than 10 percent of readers will even go on to the second page of results, so it’s important to control those top listings of Google when your name is searched for.

We need tools that are powerful in the eyes of Google and allow us to create content about ourselves online. Today, we’re in luck because we have those tools available to us. They are social media platforms: blogs, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube. They get ranked high in Google search engines and give us the flexibility to create content about ourselves online.


Defining ourselves online with social media is the most powerful way to establish our online reputation.

No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

An Inside Look at What’s Trending in the New Healthcare

An Inside Look at What’s Trending in the New Healthcare | Online Reputation Management for Doctors | Scoop.it

Every year, B. E. Smith, a Lenexa, Ks.-based healthcare executive search firm,  analyzes its surveys of more than 300 healthcare leaders, and partners with the American Hospital Association (AHA) on an environmental scan that reflects upon the most crucial trends expected to impact healthcare leaders through the new year and beyond.

The 2015 Healthcare Trends white paper identifies nine trends that span a range from institutional realignments, new competitive forces, patient demands, population health implications, and workforce development and engagement needs. Through all of this, B. E. Smith executives say that one point stands clear—the current environment, in all of its complexity, stands to greatly impact leadership planning, strategies and technologies to adapt to this ever-evolving landscape.

Recently, HCI Associate Editor Rajiv Leventhal spoke with Laura Musfeldt, vice president of senior executive search, and Mick Ruel, vice president of executive search about the white paper, and the IT and policy-related trends that will affect patient care organizations nationwide as they move forward in the new healthcare. Below are excerpts from those interviews.

What were the most significant  trends you found related to IT and policy?

Mick Ruel: What I found most significant is how technology and technical solutions are being tied more into clinical results, as well as the drive for better results and better quality outcomes. Things will vary from organization to organization, but the trend is utilizing the data. Healthcare has always done a great job of collecting data, so now what do we do with that to help drive towards better clinical outcomes?

Laura Musfeldt: In addition to that, when you think of federal policy, we have had the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in place long enough now that we really can ensure privacy for patients. That will allow us to move forward with having a direct dialogue, as you can log into a portal and ask a question and get a response back. We have advanced enough to be able to do that. We can measure quality outcomes, and that’s driving things from a reimbursement perspective. Those organizations that have good data on what their outcomes are will be in a stronger position as they negotiate with payers. It’s a win-win for everyone.

Ruel: Yes, you’re seeing more healthcare leadership with the change in reimbursement models—leadership has had to take a key role in developing policy in helping the organization overall in the new reimbursement model.

How are organizations doing a better job of “utilizing the data”?

Ruel: You have clinicians who have taken the lead in understanding the data and applying that back to generate better outcomes. Physicians are getting more involved in that, rather than telling them what the scorecard is afterwards, which is what used to happen. Then they started using that data to make decisions proactively in advance for better outcomes. That’s been the trend until recently, and now you’re starting to see healthcare leaders get involved because of the way they’re going to get paid and the way revenue is going to be generated. They’re taking the key role. You had scorecards that told them how they played and what they had done, and now they’re using that to drive how they do things before they get involved in decision-making clinically.

How are providers reacting to the shift to a value-based healthcare, when they’re still getting paid in a fee-for-service model?

Ruel: What I have seen from our clients is that even if they are being reimbursed that way, they’re being proactive, knowing that the landscape will change. Steps are being taken now to make that transition. Dollars are to be had even now, if you can provide outcomes-based service, or avoid service with population health.  That’s probably the biggest key and change. Smaller organizations that can be nimble are doing that sooner, while larger health systems are looking for ways to reduce expenses in preparation for lower reimbursement.

Musfeldt: I do quite a bit of work with physician leaders, and every one that I talk to is really paying attention to evidence-based medicine. Decisions are being made by that collective database that tells us, for example, when is the right time to give that antibiotic to the patient before he/she goes to surgery? They know that, but now they can put mechanisms in to ensure that it happens. They might not all be at risk now, though their thinking is in line with that.


So you aren’t seeing pushback from providers?

Musfeldt: I’m not sensing that, because these are savvy, smart leaders, who understand the risk factor. That’s increasing every day—physicians will be on risk-based reimbursement just like the hospital is. So if they don’t follow evidence-based recommendations, they will be the outlier. They don’t want that, they want to hit it right every time. I don’t see pushback.

How are mergers and acquisitions affecting the landscape?

Ruel: I don’t know if they’re affecting things, but you are seeing the fear of a smaller reimbursement coming, so how do we streamline and become more efficient? I’m working with some independent hospitals, and they would like to stay independent, but as much as they want to, there has to be some relationship and affiliation by their choice or not. So I don’t know if M&As are affecting the landscape, as much as the landscape as allowing more of that to happen.

What are the biggest concerns of healthcare organizations as we move forward?

Ruel: The uncertainty about the future is the biggest thing I’m seeing from my clients in terms of fear. We know what’s happening, where it’s all going, but how will it impact us? How will we be reimbursed, will we remain independent? That’s what I am hearing. Having to deal with all of those things and not knowing how it will affect the way they do business today is the biggest challenge.

What key pieces of advice would you offer healthcare organizations as they forge ahead in 2015?

Musfeldt: This is where leadership comes in—a strong leader will anticipate and develop the next generation plan. The most successful ones are the ones investing in IT leadership, and that includes physicians being part of that decision making at the high end.

Ruel: You better embrace the change and have the leadership to adjust to the changing landscape. Physician engagement is getting there, but it’s not where it needs to be. It’s all about clinicians, in a broader sense, how they tie in technology, and finance into deliverables to patients. That’s the key moving forward. Leaders that embrace that get it. We’re seeing more turnover in the CFO role, and we’re seeing the CIO role evolve into more of a strategist with the organization, rather than providing technology like they traditionally have. I can’t talk enough clients into creating a CMIO position, I think its critical. They better find a physician champ that supports and understand technology.


No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

Online Reputation Management: Doctors and Dentists Guide to Fixing Bad Reviews

Online Reputation Management: Doctors and Dentists Guide to Fixing Bad Reviews | Online Reputation Management for Doctors | Scoop.it

The number of reviews for health care providers online is growing exponentially and at an accelerating pace. Betting against this trend is foolish, yet managing your reputation online can be a time-consuming task. And once effective cease & desist letters to remove misleading or false reviews can receive large amounts of negative publicity from online newspapers and avid defenders of CDA 230 of the Communications Decency Act – which holds harmless those companies hosting such
user generated content.


If you search Google for your name you will see the following:

  • Your own website (hopefully).
  • Various review sites such as Insider Pages, Dr. Oogle, Yelp and others.
  • Search directories happily capturing traffic on searches for your name.


Review sites and search directories are trying to sell advertisements based upon people searching for objective reviews on your practice and others offering the same service. That means your current patients looking up your phone number or address in Google are blasted with ads for potentially negative reviews and ads from competing practices in your immediate neighborhood (Google is getting very good at Geo-Targeting down to the zip code).


A more alarming situation is if a review site has one or more bad reviews visible associated with your practice.


Many private practitioners are under the assumption that the web traffic they get is from searches for keywords such as “Dentist San Francisco, Ca” (Broad Keywords) by examination you will you’re your name (Brand Keywords) being actively and regularly searched by your current patients base and potential patients.


If you have patients, chances they ARE or will be talking about you on the Web.


You cannot really 100% stop bad reviews on review sites but you can execute a strategy to defend yourself and voice your own perspectives as balance, hopefully a dominant perspective that is the primary “voice” of your name & brand online. The irony is that private practices have been toiling for years (some decades) to care for their patients, having collected numerous Thank You letters and cards.

So, What Can You Do?

Ideally, this is handled by having hundreds of pages that you control that Google can find under a search for your name.


Do this by creating a Blog. Blogs are cheap to build and easy to maintain. Search Engines also love the dynamic nature of a Blog – when’s the last time you added new content to your website as is required now of competitive keyword markets on Google? Chances are, a low-cost Blog will eventually out-rank your static website (and many others) over time. Best of all, you’ll show your community and your patients (as well as future patients) that you care enough to have a voice online and adopt new technologies.


A blog offers a great avenue to pass on details about your practice such as new equipment you spent so much to get or new skills you or your staff have attained.


Transcribe your patients’ testimonials online and on your Blog. And add functionality on your Blog where your patients – if they have a gripe – can come to you first. Because if they have no alternative but to go onto another site – that negative review (even if the patient was having a very bad day) can be permanent!


Every page on a blog can be set up to be visible to the various searches on your name to where it can in time produce hundreds of potential pages that can be found under a search for your name.

No comment yet.
Scoop.it!

The Fundamental Challenge of Building a Healthcare-Provider Focused Startup

The Fundamental Challenge of Building a Healthcare-Provider Focused Startup | Online Reputation Management for Doctors | Scoop.it

Over the past few years, the government imposed copious regulations on healthcare providers, most of which are supposed to reduce costs, improve access to care, and consumerize the patient experience. Prior to 2009, the federal government was far less involved in driving the national healthcare agenda, and thus provider IT budgets, innovation, and research and development agendas among healthcare IT vendors.

This is, in theory (and according to the government), a good idea. Prior to the introduction of the HITECH act in 2009, IT adoption in healthcare was abysmal. The government has most certainly succeeded in driving IT adoption in the name of the triple aim. But this has two key side effects that directly impact the rate at which innovation can be introduced into the healthcare provider community.

The first side effect of government-driven innovation is that all of the vendors are building the exact same features and functions to adhere to the government requirements. This is the exact antithesis of capitalism, which is designed to allow companies to innovate on their own terms; right now, every healthcare IT vendor is innovating on the government’s terms. This is massively inefficient at a macroeconomic level, and stifles experimentation and innovation, which is ultimately bad for providers and patients.

But the second side effect is actually much more nuanced and profound. Because the federal government is driving an aggressive health IT adoption schedule, healthcare providers aren’t experimenting as much as they otherwise would. Today, the greatest bottleneck to providers embarking on a new project is not money, brain power, or infrastructure. Rather, providers are limited in their ability to adopt new technologies by their bandwidth to absorb change. It is simply not possible to undertake more than a handful of initiatives at one time; management can’t coordinate the projects, IT can’t prepare the infrastructure, and the staff can’t adjust workflows or attend training rapidly enough while caring for patients.

As the government drives change, they are literally eating up providers’ ability to innovate on any terms other than the government’s. Prominent CIOs like John Halamka from BIDMC have articulated the challenge of keeping up with government mandates, and the need to actually set aside resources to innovate outside of government mandates.

Thus is the problem with health IT entrepreneurship today. Solving painful economic or patient-safety problems is simply not top of mind for CIOs, even if these initiatives broadly align with accountable care models. They are focused on what the government has told them to focus on, and not much else. Obviously, existing healthcare IT vendors are tackling the government mandates; it’s unlikely an under-capitalized startup without brand recognition can beat the legacy vendors when the basis of competition is so clear: do what the government tells you. Startups thrive when they can asymmetrically compete with legacy incumbents.

Google beat Microsoft by recognizing search was more important than the operating system; Apple beat Microsoft by recognizing mobile was more important than the desktop; SalesForce beat Oracle and SAP because they recognized the benefits of the cloud over on-premise deployments; Voalte is challenging Vocera because they recognized the power of the smartphone long before Vocera did. There are countless examples in and out of healthcare. Startups win when they compete on new, asymmetric terms. Startups never win by going head to head with the incumbent.

We are in an era of change in healthcare. It’s obvious that risk based models will become the dominant care delivery model, and this is creating enormous opportunity for startups to enter the space. Unfortunately, the government is largely dictating the scope and themes of risk-based care delivery, which is many ways actually stifling innovation.

Thus is the problem for health IT entrepreneurship today. Despite all of the ongoing change in healthcare, it’s actually harder than ever before to change healthcare delivery things as a startup. There is simply not enough attention of bandwidth to go around. When CIOs have strict project schedules that stretch out 18 months, how can startups break in? Startups can’t survive 18 month cycles.

Thus the is paradox of innovation: the more of it you’re told to innovate, the less you can actually innovate.


No comment yet.