Guest posting by Jesal Shah
Dr. Brian Vartabedian, pediatrician and author of the blog, 33charts.com, recently presented to our class the major benefits of being a public physician, a doctor who has a social presence beyond the clinic. He highlighted its potential as a tool for advocacy and awareness; experts, such as physicians, are overwhelmingly less inclined to participate in the social media scene, allowing misinformation supplied by pseudo-scientists and misguided celebrities to serve as the predominant and most accessible content. He also underscored the role social media has played in personal marketing and branding; it can offer unparalleled avenues for career growth. Finally, he also mentioned the role of social media in personal development; it grants the opportunity for reflection in daily routine and overarching medical trends as well as the freedom to generate and then share one’s own idea with the online community. These aspects of the “public physician” accentuate social media as a platform to connect the medical with the non-medical individual in addition to any other person in between interested in such topics. This underlying feature made me extremely interested in SERMO, which looks not at the broad public reach of social media, but instead, advertises the benefits of a communication system focused on a niche population of simply doctors.
SERMO is a large (i.e. 40% of all physicians are members), private and exclusive social network for ONLY physicians. It allows its members to talk anonymously about the practice of medicine from system and administrative aspects to the level of patient diagnosis and personal mistakes/lessons/opinions. As it provides a collaborative, safe and informative environment, I definitely appreciate SERMOs utility and power in promoting change and progress in the medical community. SERMOS’ implications for doctor-to-doctor level information-sharing are indeed unparalleled and fascinating; however, I also wonder about possible negative consequences arising from a social media enterprise with such an exclusive member base. Does the system capitalize on a physician’s insecurity in sharing and owning up to one’s views? In a medical landscape dominated by HIPAA/malpractice concerns, fear of employment repercussions from improper or unacceptable opinion sharing, and the lack of direct reimbursement or payment schemes associated with greater social connectivity, to name a few, does this anonymous medical bubble provide an escape for concerned physicians? Or is this simply a separate medical advancement in collaborative learning supplementing the “public physician” role? Personally, the qualities of this online network indirectly signal systemic issues with the medical establishment. The current structure and norms pressure a physician to be a perfect professional, dehumanized and separate from the patient population. The healthcare sector and its influential actors need to create a system where doctors can willingly, without worries, showcase their individuality and personality…where a community of sharing does not require anonymity or even exclusivity.