Gunson employees leaving positive reviews for Gunson

[ghiggson90]

See the attached images. I have seen several surgeons engage in this ethically questionable practice (Antipov is another). It's problematic for at least three reasons:

(1) Conflict of interest: Employees are compensated by their employer and thus rely on their employer's economic success for their livelihoods. Consequently, they have economic incentives, albeit somewhat more attenuated than their employer's, to leave positive reviews. The impartiality of employee or employee/patient reviews is thus suspect.

(2) Undue influence: An employee or employee/patient might face adverse consequences for leaving negative reviews or not leaving a review at all for their employer. For this reason, the impartiality of an employee or employee/patient review must be questioned.

(3) Patient experience: If indeed the employee is a patient, the patient/employee has the benefit of day-to-day monitoring from the surgeon and if the employee's status as a patient is public, the employee becomes a visible exponent of the surgeon's work. For this reason, the employee/patient is likely to receive post-operative attention and care that might be different from that of the standard patient.

At a minimum, a patient reviewer who is an employee of a surgeon should disclose such relationship.

[IconVillage]

Gunson is extremely overrated as is without possibly misrepresentative reviews 

[Lefortitude]

hey hold the f**k up.  Jenae the receptionist actually had surgery with Gunson. She was 8 weeks post op when I went to see him for my consult, and she looked fantastic. She documents her entire process on her Instagram too, and wrote a congruent review of her experience. Yes shes lucky she works in his office but she took 2 weeks off just like anybody else and had her follow ups just like anyone else.

I also did notice another google review from someone who works at A&G but I dont know the full story there.  I think you're right in that they should disclose theyre employees, but I dont think theyre obliged to, granted the review and experience with the office is authentic, which as far as I can tell, it seems to be.

PS. When i noticed the few familiar names (people I knew worked at A&G) on the reviews I decided to dive into the reviews on google and yelp and found that most of them seem legit as far as I can tell. The office only has so many employees after all.

[Post bimax]

hey hold the f**k up.  Jenae the receptionist actually had surgery with Gunson. She was 8 weeks post op when I went to see him for my consult, and she looked fantastic. She documents her entire process on her Instagram too, and wrote a congruent review of her experience. Yes shes lucky she works in his office but she took 2 weeks off just like anybody else and had her follow ups just like anyone else.

I also did notice another google review from someone who works at A&G but I dont know the full story there.  I think you're right in that they should disclose theyre employees, but I dont think theyre obliged to, granted the review and experience with the office is authentic, which as far as I can tell, it seems to be.

PS. When i noticed the few familiar names (people I knew worked at A&G) on the reviews I decided to dive into the reviews on google and yelp and found that most of them seem legit as far as I can tell. The office only has so many employees after all.

The employees should still disclose their relationship to the employer when posting a review.  It's definitely ethically questionable not to.

[kavan]

See the attached images. I have seen several surgeons engage in this ethically questionable practice (Antipov is another). It's problematic for at least three reasons:

(1) Conflict of interest: Employees are compensated by their employer and thus rely on their employer's economic success for their livelihoods. Consequently, they have economic incentives, albeit somewhat more attenuated than their employer's, to leave positive reviews. The impartiality of employee or employee/patient reviews is thus suspect.

(2) Undue influence: An employee or employee/patient might face adverse consequences for leaving negative reviews or not leaving a review at all for their employer. For this reason, the impartiality of an employee or employee/patient review must be questioned.

(3) Patient experience: If indeed the employee is a patient, the patient/employee has the benefit of day-to-day monitoring from the surgeon and if the employee's status as a patient is public, the employee becomes a visible exponent of the surgeon's work. For this reason, the employee/patient is likely to receive post-operative attention and care that might be different from that of the standard patient.

At a minimum, a patient reviewer who is an employee of a surgeon should disclose such relationship.

You make some good points. But I would ask if the fact that she gave her real name in the review was a 'minimum' in disclosing her relationship to the doctor given the easy cross reference.

[ghiggson90]

You make some good points. But I would ask if the fact that she gave her real name in the review was a 'minimum' in disclosing her relationship to the doctor given the easy cross reference.

Would the average prospective patient identify such relationship when considering whether to have an initial consultation? No. Is it reasonable to expect an average prospective patient to conduct diligence to determine whether any reviewers have financial ties to the surgeon? No. Should the headline rating of a surgeon include the reviews left by patient-employees? Debatable. Is the burden on the reviewer to disclose far lower than the burden on prospective patients to conduct conflicts diligence? Yes.

She or Gunson should disclose, as is standard practice in other contexts.

[Dopesaint]

Gunson is extremely overrated as is without possibly misrepresentative reviews 

Who in the US would you say is better?

[Lefortitude]

Who in the US would you say is better?

"Better" is pretty subjective. Depends on what criteria.

[kavan]

Would the average prospective patient identify such relationship when considering whether to have an initial consultation? No. Is it reasonable to expect an average prospective patient to conduct diligence to determine whether any reviewers have financial ties to the surgeon? No. Should the headline rating of a surgeon include the reviews left by patient-employees? Debatable. Is the burden on the reviewer to disclose far lower than the burden on prospective patients to conduct conflicts diligence? Yes.

She or Gunson should disclose, as is standard practice in other contexts.

I see she's on Yelp but didn't post the review there:

https://www.yelp.com/user_details?userid=mBB5GS-xqZ1bUbqiWHE2JQ

However, I also saw on yelp she voted for the positive reviews of other people.

Where did you find this review and is it STILL up?

Although I agree she should have disclosed her relationship but I would not hold Gunson's feet to the fire for her not doing so. She 'should have' known better. But maybe she didn't know any better. Have you established whether Gunson KNOWS of this. Litmus test would be to drop him a line telling him of it and see if he gets her to take it down assuming it's still up--is it still up?

[ghiggson90]

I see she's on Yelp but didn't post the review there:

https://www.yelp.com/user_details?userid=mBB5GS-xqZ1bUbqiWHE2JQ

However, I also saw on yelp she voted for the positive reviews of other people.

Where did you find this review and is it STILL up?

Although I agree she should have disclosed her relationship but I would not hold Gunson's feet to the fire for her not doing so. She 'should have' known better. But maybe she didn't know any better. Have you established whether Gunson KNOWS of this. Litmus test would be to drop him a line telling him of it and see if he gets her to take it down assuming it's still up--is it still up?

It’s still up. From the business page in Google search. Probably against Google’s review conflict of interest policy too.

[kavan]

It’s still up. From the business page in Google search. Probably against Google’s review conflict of interest policy too.

OK. Just saw it up there. Best to tell him though in the event he might not know it's there because the only surefire way to know that he wants her to have it up there is to tell him it's there and then see if he gets her to remove it.

[DRIVVEN]

Who in the US would you say is better?

Gunson has crippled me and was dishonest with me about how he screwed up my mandible. I would say Steve Sullivan has twice the amount of experience as gunson and is a much better surgeon.  Reza Movahed is also top notch. Relle in CA.

[DRIVVEN]

See the attached images. I have seen several surgeons engage in this ethically questionable practice (Antipov is another). It's problematic for at least three reasons:

(1) Conflict of interest: Employees are compensated by their employer and thus rely on their employer's economic success for their livelihoods. Consequently, they have economic incentives, albeit somewhat more attenuated than their employer's, to leave positive reviews. The impartiality of employee or employee/patient reviews is thus suspect.

(2) Undue influence: An employee or employee/patient might face adverse consequences for leaving negative reviews or not leaving a review at all for their employer. For this reason, the impartiality of an employee or employee/patient review must be questioned.

(3) Patient experience: If indeed the employee is a patient, the patient/employee has the benefit of day-to-day monitoring from the surgeon and if the employee's status as a patient is public, the employee becomes a visible exponent of the surgeon's work. For this reason, the employee/patient is likely to receive post-operative attention and care that might be different from that of the standard patient.

At a minimum, a patient reviewer who is an employee of a surgeon should disclose such relationship.

I have looked into this. Under the law, this is misleading advertising, both on the state and Federal Level.  The Federal Trade Commission internet endorsement rules CLEARLY and unequivocally target this practice as unethical and misleading. It’s not just employees that have posted reviews for Gunson without identifying the business or personal relationship, he has his own daughter and her husband posting positive reviews on Google.  Jenae has placed reviews on every major sites, as if she were assigned to do some social media marketing because she is an internet influencer with 20,000 followers.  Also posted are a number of reviews from other staff, and from a number of orthodontists with him he works. ALL of it is misleading, unethical and improper—and its revealing that he is engaging in such tactics. 

[DRIVVEN]

OK. Just saw it up there. Best to tell him though in the event he might not know it's there because the only surefire way to know that he wants her to have it up there is to tell him it's there and then see if he gets her to remove it.

I have already told them about this and that they post reviews by orthodontists with whom they work and post reviews from his own daughter and her husband and other staff, when they took no action i posted on google stating that people should llook at the reviews carefully because they include staff, business associates  and family members—would not be surprised if some of the other positive reviews were not legit.  You can see these for yourself. I cant find my google review I think they got it taken down.

[DRIVVEN]

You make some good points. But I would ask if the fact that she gave her real name in the review was a 'minimum' in disclosing her relationship to the doctor given the easy cross reference.

It actually has nothing to do with the fact that her real name is used. The nature of the advertising is that the relationship, business or personal must be disclosed. Also when people see the reviews they, dont know who she is, they also dont know that Hanna McComb is Gunson’s daughter or that Jenae works for him, its just wrong and its intentional.