Concerns about the recommendation process

[FM1]

I a new member and have been researching HT surgeons extensively over the last month or so. I am extremely grateful for this site and the quality input by most members. I do however have a concern that the recommendation process seems to be very fast and loose without any concrete qualifying factors around it.

 

As an example, Dr Doganay got the approval to become a recommended surgeon after 6 positive responses (http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/169735-potential-recommendation-dr-hakan-doganay-turkey.html) along the lines of 'yeah, he is great' in the recommendation thread. He is still somehow a recommended doctor despite numerous horror stories being uncovered about his practice in the last few weeks.

 

Similarly, Dr Resul Yaman became recommended after only a handful of positive responses (http://www.hairrestorationnetwork.com/eve/180530-potential-recommendation-dr-yaman-istanbul-turkey.html) despite there being very little information about him in the form of user review threads. To be clear, I am not saying he shouldn't be recommended or calling out the quality of his work - he is currently on my shortlist of potential HT surgeons. I'm simply stating that the whole process seems fairly lax.

 

I am sharing this concern as I am strong considering getting a hair transplant done and I am using this site and particularly the recommended doctor network as one of my sources to find surgeons. I am hoping to get some level of assurance from the admin or mods regarding the process on becoming a recommended surgeon. To that end, I would be grateful if someone could confirm the following:

 

1. How do you guys decide which doctor you like to add to recommended network? Do you get approached by the doctor in the first instance?

 

2. What are the guidelines for including a doctor in the recommended network?

 

3. Under which circumstances do you remove a doctor from the network?

 

4. If a patient has a particularly bad experience with a doctor, what kind of support do you provide?

 

5. Is there any accountability on your behalf for doctors in your network?

[esrec]

I voiced a similar concern a few days ago, suggesting a set criteria and process be in place with a final score which takes all variables into consideration. It's very subjective right now.

[FM1]

Did you end up getting a response, Esrec?

 

I don't understand how other members are not concerned about this as much as I am. This website bills itself as the leading authority on HT surgeons yet their approach to get someone on their recommended network list is beyond airy fairy.

 

Just the fact that Bill knew that Dr Doganay no longer performs much of the surgeries (as admitted by him in another thread) and yet he remains on the recommended network speaks volumes of the quality assurance that is provided by the admin and mods of this site.

 

This is deeply concerning especially considering the ramifications of having a botched hair transplant.

[paleocapa89]

The Terms of Services speaks for itself, but it is hard to find.

 

"...The physicians suggested on our Web Sites are to the best of our knowledge quality hair restoration physicians. However, Media Visions cannot vouch for these physicians, their experience, their credentials or the quality of their care...."

 

"...Web Site visitors are expected to do their own due diligence and research in selecting a physician and/or treatments. Media Visions and the Web Sites, and their employees, our partners, affiliates, sponsors, providers, licensors, or merchants make no warranties or guarantees, express or implied, as to the results or quality of care provided by the physicians or treatments presented on these Web Sites. We expressly disclaim any liability arising from consultation with, or treatment from, any of the physicians and their clinics presented on these Sites. ..."

 

..."THE WEB SITES CONTAIN FACTS, VIEWS, OPINIONS, STATEMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIRD PARTY INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS. THE SITES DO NOT REPRESENT OR ENDORSE THE ACCURACY, CURRENTNESS OR RELIABILITY OF ANY ADVICE, OPINION, STATEMENT OR OTHER INFORMATION DISPLAYED, UPLOADED OR DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE SITES. ANY RELIANCE UPON ANY SUCH OPINION, ADVICE, STATEMENT OR INFORMATION IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK..."

[esrec]

Its a dated recommendation process that needs serious revamping but I don't know how seriously this has been taken. The forum relies far too heavily on the feedback from a handful of senior members to drive the recommendation process.

 

I proposed a scoring system. Make a checklist of absolute non-negotiables that need to be in place and require each and every physician to demonstrate these practices at scale in order to remain in good standing. Give them a grade, explained it in detail. Done and Done. While not only helpful to us, I think doctors would appreciate a more detailed approach to hold all parties accountable.

[Sean]

For most docs, I think there is reference made via ISHRS, another organization/forum entity. I am not sure if the new docs are part of that group too. But i know that ISHRS has possibly removed some docs along the years.

[bpittsburgh]

It is a common practice that there are "recommendation" websites that actually earn money with affiliate links or paid listings. Problem is that some websites do this in an "over the top way" and simply abuse the good believe of the visitors of the site. I believe that there should be a clear distinction between ad placement and independent content or there should be a clear disclaimer somewhere on such site that explain the "purpose" of the site.

[paleocapa89]

I think what is really misleading is that there are a number of high profile doctors recommended by this forum, and that gives it credibility. One would assume that, it must be a reliable source that recommends doctors like Feriduni, Rahal, Konir, Feller or Hasson etc. and it must be hard to get into a group that contains these doctors.

 

And then there are a number of doctors with questionable quality who gets recommended somehow and then free rides this credibility halo created by the pros.

 

There is a HUGE difference between the doctors which is not pronounced enough.

[matt3480]

You should be basing your choices on patient reviews and your own interviews/goals with the doctors.

 

Just because someone is recommended on this site doesn't mean a lot. Granted, I would definitely be leery of anyone not recommended only because you likely won't find much information on the doctor anywhere else. I feel most recommended doctors on here at least have several patients, etc. where you can get a better feel on their work.....and then you can move on to the interviewing stage.

 

I'm sorry....I've become more passionate about this recently....but I feel there are a few doctors who CONSISTENTLY GIVE VERY GOOD RESULTS. I just really think unless there is some major obstacle (money, distance, etc)....that you should stick with these doctors and be safe. Most doctors are pretty similar price-wise....so it might be a distance thing (although we all know we shouldn't let distance be a barrier).

 

I do agree that I wish there was a better "governing body" regarding hair transplant doctors...because a couple bad apples cause fear in everyone. I have a law degree...so I equate it to the Bar....just because you are a member of the Bar does not mean you can litigate yourself out of a paper bag.

 

You only get so many chances at this. You get a few screwed up HT's and you basically are done because your donor is finite. Why risk this? I know there are probably hundreds of HT doctors worldwide.....but in reality, there probably are 50 competent ones (and even many of those might not give consistent results....but they at least won't make you worse).