The Letter
Here is the letter that started it all. No offfense, Wolfpack, but I don't see it as "purposely vague," or "lawyerly."
3/26/2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Rough Draft of the First Draft of History
Blog Archive
Blogs I Read
DextraMontana
About Me
- GeeGuy
- Obviously, I need to get a life.
Labels
- Coal Plant (132)
- Debate (14)
- Environment (5)
- Health care (1)
- Mayoral Forum (14)
- New Media (7)
4 comments:
It’s legal, it’s technically accurate (lawyerly) but doesn’t tell exactly what’s going on (vague). It gently leads a patient into thinking they need to pick a different doctor within the Clinic without letting on that Garver is not leaving town. Why was it sent to patients other than Garver’s? I would guess it was unintentional to mass mail it, but it did happen. By mass mailing a letter outside the circle of Garver’s patients and because it also appears designed to minimize the success of a business adversary, it should not be surprising that some patients found the tactic too aggressive and a news story was spawned. It might not seem fair that other business outside of medicine could get away with this without the same splash, but we are talking about the highly regarded doctor/patient relationship not the clinic/patient relationship which is more a business dealing. I really don’t understand what the Clinic gains by not saying that Garver is leaving to another local practice. Patients that are happy with Garver are most likely going to follow him anyway so why not be more open? In some circles unsaid truths are considered a lie. If not, please tell me how I can convince my wife that keeping silent on something I know she wants to know about is OK.
Wolfpack:
In reference to your post "Why was it sent to patients other than Garver’s? I would guess it was unintentional to mass mail it, but it did happen." The letter was intentionally sent to Dr. Hinz, Dr. Hall's and Dr. Garver's patients because information included in the letter pertained to all of them (ie. Dr. Garver was leaving the Clinic on March 31; Dr. Hinz was accepting new patients and Dr. Hall was moving from her current location to the NW Clinic.)I agree that patients who are happy with Garver will probably follow him. By my friends account he actually was telling patients of his departure before he notified the Clinic that he intended to do so and long before the letter was mailed; so it wasn't news or confusing to them when they received it. I also believe that some of his patients will remain patients at the NW Clinic. They like the location and for lack of a better reference the "one stop shopping" afforded to them there. They receive good care, not just from their physicians but from the lab, xray and support staff. The hours of operation and pediatric weekend-walkin hours at the Immediate Care Center work with their schedules. They've established a routine for their care and they like their routine. So, for these patients the letter served to inform them that even though Garver was leaving the Clinic, the care and service they had come to expect was still available at the NW Clinic.
Healthnut- I agree with all the reasons you provided to explain why a patient of Garver's might want to stay at the NW location. I just believe that the Clinic by the method and nature of their letter created some of the controversy. By sending it to hundreds of children who have never met Dr. Garver, many parents were puzzled. The letter is also written oddly by using the pronoun “I” throughout and then is unsigned at the bottom. This makes some “conspiracy theory” readers think that it was written individually initially and then at the last minute suspiciously changed to remove the authors identity (most likely just a last minute edit but still has the odor of odd). Finally, if you were a patient of Garver’s and you didn’t know he was leaving the Clinic, this was your first notice without being told fully what was really happening. Finding a good doctor you trust is important to us non-medically connected parents. Having the rug pulled out suddenly can be a little upsetting even if it was not done intentionally. It is a natural human reaction to want to shoot the messenger especially when you find out that your initial unjustified panic was partly caused by the poorly delivered message. It is ironic that there are some Clinic defenders upset with the Tribune for sensationalizing and printing a misleading story yet they will not admit any fault with the Clinic letter that has to some extent done the same thing.
Wolfpack - I disagree that the Clinic created some of the controversy. The letter only became controversial when a disgruntled physician or his attorney contacted the Tribune to perpetuate it. The content of the letter in and of itself was not controversial, it was factual. It may not have provided all of the details recipients would have liked. It may have reinforced the conspiracy theorists beliefs about the Clinic. I agree the letter should have used "we are" instead of "I" in the letter (referenced once and not throughout) but if multiple people in the pediatric department helped draft the letter sometimes that is what happens when you proof by committee. Side note...you may have noticed the recent ads being run by Dr. Garver changed from last week to this week. A typo in the copy may have been one reason. Everyone makes mistakes. What irks me about the entire debate is this...a patient received a letter he/she found to be confusing. Instead of calling the Clinic to say, "Hey! I received this letter from the Clinic and I'm confused" they called the Tribune. Instead of the Tribune suggesting the patient call the Clinic, they interpreted the call to be some sort of hot lead for a story. Disgruntled physician + Clinic = front page news. I would argue this approach did more to pull the rug out from under the parents and patients then the actual letter. I bet if the letter generated the mass confusion implied by the article and those calls went directly to the Clinic, the Clinic would have proactively addressed the issue. To my knowledge it didn't. Personally, when I receive any type of correspondence I find to be confusing, upsetting or that generates questions, I contact the company directly. Most times, someone in the company directs me to someone else in the company etc. until I finally talk to a human being who can answer my questions and bring clarity to any confusion. Do you really think the Tribune wants to be the clearing house for all those confused souls living in our community? If so, they'll be hearing from me the next time I receive a letter.
Post a Comment