Feedback, or how we have adjusted feedback

So, you have a ready site - both technically and ideologically. Content is fully thought out and ready to use. Implemented search mechanisms, built competent linking pages. The call center has been established. Provided an influx of constant traffic: SEO-optimization, contextual advertising, PR (how all this is done, you can find here ). The daily number of visitors is more than 5,000. One question remains: how to translate this traffic into requests - in this case, in the record to the doctors?

DockDoc is a service start-up on finding doctors, conquering Runet open spaces since the beginning of 2012. The point of the project is that it helps each patient to find the right doctor for himself - any specialty, near any metro station, in any price range (read more about this). But what can make a person from all these doctors choose a specialist? The answer to this question will be devoted to this post.

Paradoxes search doctors

It turned out that the vast majority of patients in choosing a doctor are interested in three things: geographical location, rating and price (in that order). There are still a small number of people concerned with a scientific degree and work experience of a specialist, but no more than 10% of them will be typed. Education, courses, seminars - for a person all this is of secondary importance. Statistics show: in 9 out of 10 cases out of two doctors, other things being equal, the person chooses the one about which the review was left. We want our portal to be not only convenient, but also useful for the user. Therefore, without thinking twice, they set themselves a goal: to set up a system for receiving feedback from patients.

Each doctor - by recall

It was decided: you need to publish feedback on the work of doctors. There are many ways to get feedback, consider all possible:

1. Allow everyone to share their impressions of visiting a doctor and leave feedback directly on the site. Immediately the problem: how to find out that the review is not "fake"? Many clinics sin in this matter, thus advertising their doctors. And even a negative review can be fictitious - in order to lower the position of competitors.
2. Remind enrolled patients about the need to leave a review - using e-mails or sms-alerts. The topic is good: reviews will be lively, original and self-supporting. However, how to interest patients in that they leave feedback? There are options, there is no unambiguous solution yet.
3. Ring up each patient and ask to answer a few questions about the last admission. So we, as the classics said, will kill all two hares: we will find out who exactly “reached” the clinics' doors, and in addition we will receive an impartial review of the doctor visited. On this option, and stopped.

')

First difficulties

The first thing you need to decide is: what does a person need to know about a doctor from a review? And accordingly, from which questions do we need to form a telephone questionnaire? Questions should be few, they should be short, concise and understandable. After agonizing intellectual experiments, long negotiations and cups of strong coffee, we came to the conclusion that we are all interested in 3 things: the general opinion of the patient about the doctor, the attentiveness of the doctor, and the adequacy of the cost of taking it. We accept answers in points - from 1 to 5, so as not to confuse anyone. You can’t describe the doctor’s numbers alone, so they also decided that patients should be asked to leave a few words about admission if they wish: thanks, complaints, wishes. If a person is dissatisfied with something - be sure to ask for clarification.

Two weeks after the launch of the feedback campaign, we found out a lot of interesting things: people are not as talkative as we thought (or we would like to). One third of the patients immediately refuse to talk to unknown people whom they did not even ask them to call. A good quarter of those who continue the conversation do not remember the name of the doctor at whose reception they were 3-5 days ago. And another part does not even remember whether the reception itself took place)) Here it is, the rhythm of life of a big city.

But this does not frighten us: we picked up the correct wording of the questions, optimized the general text of the conversation, searched for a long time, but still found a competent girl to collect feedback, and our feedback system finally worked in full force.

Also saved the system of self-feedback on the site. If the message was left by a patient who registered with a doctor using our service, the system finds its phone number in the customer database. Thus, we understand that this person really was at the reception and his recall can be trusted. Otherwise, the recall does not cause serious attention, and we will not publish it.

Out of the unchecked

At first we wanted to pour all the reviews in a row on the site - they are all real, and we have nothing to hide. But as soon as we listened to the first 20-30 records of patient surveys, our opinion changed dramatically. So, we bring to your attention these reviews (literally reproduced from the recording of a telephone conversation):

In some cases, the claim to the doctor is completely unclear: “ It’s generally difficult to call a clinic, it’s not even an office of a private psychiatrist! It's just a room about 2 meters, a table with one sheet and a pen on it, and that’s all, there’s nothing else, no computer, nothing. This is a filkin letter, this is just discarded money. This doctor really needs help, he really has the appearance of a mentally retarded person, with real mental problems . ”

It happens that the patient has his own opinion on how the treatment should have been done: “The service was disgusting. The doctor may be competent, but they began to demand an examination from me. I was diagnosed with SARS, after which the doctor suggested an examination, fluorography, complete blood count, etc. And I had to sign a paper, where it was written that the doctor was not responsible for anything . ”

Often people are dissatisfied with invoicing at the clinic visited: “ I was deceived with money at this clinic, instead of one price turned out to be completely different ... I now think of getting better and unscrewing their heads there all .”

But sometimes a person quite reasonably explains to us that the doctor he visited is an unremarkable sample ham: “ When I come to see a doctor, I don’t have to hear my knees or detailed explanations of the translation of all its parts in Latin. It is important for me to write the correct prescription and say what pictures to take. When I asked if I should take an x-ray, the doctor replied: "At your discretion." Maybe I didn’t find a common language with the doctor, but it seemed strange to me. ”

Or: “The doctor is rude, perhaps, professionally, she is also a great specialist, I could not understand this ... She accepted me, and everything started with the fact that she got out a calculator and started counting money ... ”.

Judge not lest ye be judged?

We doubted for a long time, but nevertheless we decided: we publish a negative associated with impoliteness, inattention and taciturnity of the doctor. Even if the doctor cannot make a diagnosis at the first appointment, he should GET this to the patient, and not leave him alone with his thoughts. We do not post reviews that relate to the clinic and its pricing policy, while only collecting. As for the correctness of the prescribed treatment, it is too slippery. Therefore, we do not publish the first review of this nature, and starting from the second, we send to the clinic a request for comments on the situation. There have already been cases of repression by clinics working with us in relation to negligent doctors - up to and including dismissal.

Reviews should affect the rating

The ratio of positive and negative reviews at the moment - 5 to 1. But we almost immediately began to notice one thing: negative reviews often do not come one by one, but add up to the system. Some doctors get 2, 3 or more negative reviews in a row. There is no doubt - with such "experts" you need to do something. We developed a special system that lowers the doctor's rating after a certain amount of negative feedback. For equilibrium, they introduced the opposite mechanism: an increase in the rating of those doctors who liked the patients the most. Thus, now the rating of the doctor consists of two parts: the formal indicators of the professionalism of the doctor, as well as feedback on his work. So we began to “grope” for good and bad doctors.

Food for thought

Difficulty - doctors who have scored a lot more positive reviews in comparison with their colleagues attract patients to themselves, as a result they get even more feedback than they attract even more patients. 20% of doctors account for about 70% of patients. DokDoc has its own stars - and this is great, because we are confident in these specialists and can always advise them. We are also convinced that the majority of other doctors are no worse for the most part - but far fewer people write to them because of the relatively small amount of feedback. We love to cope with difficulties ( find out what we are talking about ). At the moment, we are actively looking for a way out: how to draw attention to these specialists and at the same time reduce the queues to the leading doctors? Maybe you tell us?