Social media is ubiquitous BUT healthcare professionals usage guidelines are sparse, so the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience set out to rectify this situation and the results to that effort are titled, “Social Media Behavior Guidelines for Healthcare Professionals: An American Society of Pain and Neuroscience NEURON Project,” and appears in the November 5, 2024 edition of the Journal of Pain Research.
Docs: Don’t Tank Your Practice With Social Media
2 min read Premium comments
#americansocietyofpainandneuroscience#neuronproject#socialmedia#timothydeer
According to the National Institutes of Health reported that in 2024, 71.2% of physicians are utilizing social media1.
Co-author Timothy R. Deer, M.D., president and CEO of The Spine and Nerve Center of The Virginias, told OTW, “The number of healthcare professionals on social media makes this an important issue currently and going forward.”
Deer and his team selected a panel of experts based on their expertise, publications, diversity, and own social media presence. Along with expert guidance, the committee conducted an extensive analysis of peer-reviewed literature in communication and medical journals to determine best social media practices for healthcare practitioners.
As Dr. Deer, chairman and founder of the American Society of Pain and Neuroscience, told OTW, the most important issues surrounding healthcare providers and social media are:
- Confidentiality
- Branding versus improper self-promotion
- Improper behavior creating animosity and division on LinkedIn and creating public argument
- Improper “anonymous” comments to create distrust in the posting person
The committee determined that social media messages significantly affect patients’ and colleagues’ perceptions and actions regarding medical issues. Thus, healthcare professionals must be aware of legal and ethical considerations while maintaining a consistent, educational, and digestible persona online.
Noting that published research has demonstrated that the perception of medical professionals’ social media content may differ from that of the wider public,2 the authors encourage healthcare professionals to assess their social media presence and even seek a review of their publicized communications from a non-medical reviewer.
OTW asked Dr. Deer about the “lowest hanging fruit” as far as addressing concerns and he said, “Creating a professional and proper venue for both agreement and pleasant disagreement that is constructive not destructive.”
As for where most doctors go astray when it comes to social media, he added, “Most doctors do not go astray. The most common areas of failure are ‘intentional creation of improper disruption’ and improper posting of patient data—when a photo or X ray is published and although there is no patient name it is easily identifiable.”
The committee recommended that “practitioners have separate personal and professional social media accounts and establish accounts solely dedicated to engaging in discourse related to the healthcare industry, as well as with colleagues, industry, and patients for marketing and educational purposes.”
“As such, a well-defined distinction between personal and professional relationships with patients should be emphasized by physicians. In addition, healthcare practitioners are counseled to treat all disseminated content on social media platforms as inherently public, regardless of privacy settings, and prudence is advised when expressing potentially contentious viewpoints.”
Dr. Deer offered several guidelines for those who wish to communicate an area of disagreement. “Use your real name and profile and be pleasant even in areas of disagreement. Lastly, if you are angry about a post wait a period of time before responding.”
References:
React:
Discussion
This is a fascinating development. In my practice we've seen similar outcomes with the revised protocol. The key differentiator seems to be patient selection criteria. Has anyone else noticed the correlation with BMI thresholds?
Great point. I'd push back slightly on the conclusion, the sample size in the cited study is too small to draw population-level inferences. That said, the directional signal is compelling and worth a larger RCT.
We implemented a similar approach last year. Early results are promising but we're still gathering 12-month follow-up data. Happy to share our protocol if anyone is interested.
Join the conversation
Orthopedic professionals are discussing this. Sign in and upgrade to read every comment and add your voice.