Dr. Google: Jurors' Choice for a Second Opinion

A longstanding juror complaint we have encountered during years of focus group and trial research is that doctors simply “don’t spend enough time” with patients to discuss diagnoses, options and procedures.  Not surprisingly, through our recent healthcare survey polling nearly 800 respondents nationwide, we discovered a strong majority of Americans are increasingly relying on the Internet to supplement their conversations with healthcare providers.

More than three-quarters of respondents indicated they use the Internet to research their condition after talking with a caregiver, and the same number indicated they have looked online to “self-diagnose” their symptoms before going to the doctor. 

Interestingly, of those who said they research their condition after talking to a doctor or nurse, 34% said they do this “every time.”

As doctor visits and trips to the hospital get more expensive, we expect increased use of Web sites such as Web MD and Wikipedia to research health conditions.  However, this Internet sleuthing is likely to create even more medical misinformation among your jury pool.  Anyone who has typed “headache, runny nose” into Web MD and diagnosed themselves with the Ebola virus can attest to how access to such a wealth of information can contribute to confusion regarding certain afflictions and the appropriate treatment.

In a trial setting, this increasing reliance on the Internet underscores the importance of using credible expert witnesses who can explain concepts in a simple manner.  As other surveys have shown, most jurors rank an expert’s ability to educate in an understandable way far above other attributes many assumed were the most persuasive to jurors.

The increasing tendency to self-diagnose due to perceptions of doctors being “rushed” also highlights how crucial it is to emphasize the time your caregivers take to not only diagnose an issue, but explain findings one-on-one to the patient and fully inform them of the aspects of various options and treatments.

Although patients seeking out new ways to educate themselves can be a positive trend in some respects, the human touch will always will trump a monitor and keyboard – and it is in your best interests to highlight face-to-face measures taken by doctors and nurses whenever possible.  Even in cases where documentation of caregiver/patient discussions is lacking or the consent form is vague, it can be helpful to discuss with caregivers on the witness stand their standard practice, caregiver philosophy and reasons why they believe patient communication is crucial to their practice.

If you would like to discuss any of our findings or suggest a topic for future surveys, please call us at 714.754.1010