Moderation of Feedback
Q: Why did HealthEngine moderate my review?
A: The PRS was intended to operate as a positive, aspirational, recognition system, where only the practices rated highest by the practice’s own patients appeared.
In addition, the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (National Law) as interpreted by the AHPRA Guidelines, prohibits the publication of any feedback containing reference to the identity of a specific health practitioner or patient or referring to the provision of clinical care services to the patient and that may represent a “testimonial”.
While many of the edits were minor and required by law, it appears there were occasions when our editing went beyond what was required under our regulatory obligations.
In relation to published feedback, our process was to email all users to let them know that their feedback may have been edited.
Q: Why have you taken down the reviews?
A: We take the interests of our users and client practices very seriously, and so we must take these allegations seriously.
We want to be sure that users clearly understand the information they obtain from our site.
That is why we have removed the published feedback component of the PRS from our website pending review and publicly apologised for any confusion caused by our editing processes.
We have commenced both internal and external reviews of PRS policies and procedures and will also act decisively on the outcomes of these reviews to ensure we meet best practice standards.
Q: Can you explain the moderation process?
A: The PRS was intended to operate as a positive, aspirational, recognition system, where only the practices rated highest by the practice’s own patients appeared.
In addition, the National Law, as interpreted by the AHPRA Guidelines, prohibits the publication of any feedback containing reference to the identity of a specific health practitioner or patient or referring to the provision of clinical care services to the patient and that may represent a “testimonial”.
Consistent with these aims, we edited some user feedback before publication to seek to ensure that it complied with the National Law and AHPRA Guidelines and with our positive intentions for the PRS.
While many of the edits were minor and required by law, it appears there were occasions when our editing went beyond what was required under our regulatory obligations.
In relation to published feedback, our process was to email all users to let them know that their feedback may have been edited.
Over the last three years, we have received very few complaints about the way we have edited feedback, including from the users who submitted it.
However, the trust of our users and customers is important to us and we want to be sure that users clearly understand the information they are obtaining through our site.
That is why we are undertaking thorough internal and external reviews of our processes and practices and will act decisively on the findings of these reviews to ensure that our policies and procedures meet best practice standards.
Q: Do you remove negative feedback?
A: Our aim has been to celebrate the great work of GPs and practices around Australia by focusing on and only publishing the ratings and feedback of those practices that achieve a positive rating of 80% or more.
The idea is that other practices can then aspire to achieve a higher rating in order to be recognised as a recommended practice.
In accordance with this positive or aspirational approach, where the feedback has been negative overall, we have not published it. Instead, we have provided it directly to the practice, completely unmoderated, to help it improve its services.
While many of the edits were minor and required by law, it appears there were occasions when our editing went beyond what was required under our regulatory obligations.
In relation to published feedback, our process was to email all users to let them know that their feedback may have been edited.
Over the last three years, we have received very few complaints about the way we have edited feedback, including from the users who submitted it.
However, the trust of our users and customers is very important to us. We want to be sure that users clearly understand the information they obtain from our site.
That is why we are undertaking thorough internal and external reviews of our processes and practices and will act decisively on the findings of these reviews to ensure we meet best practice standards..
Q: How are you going to fix this issue?
A: We have taken down the published PRS feedback system pending the outcomes of a comprehensive internal and external review of our policies and procedures. We will act decisively on their outcomes to ensure we meet best practice standards.
We are also seeking to work with relevant regulators to ensure that any new policies and procedures going forward comply with all our regulatory obligations.
Q: Will HealthEngine bring back the feedback option?
A: Your trust is very important to us. We want to be sure that you and the rest of our users clearly understand the information you obtain from our site.
We removed the published PRS feedback component of the website pending internal and external reviews of our policies and procedures.
Once those reviews are completed, we will consider the outcomes before deciding what to do going forward..
