USA Today recently ran an article Some doctors join Facebook, Twitter; others wary.

Images-1558 What I found interesting about this piece was what, I perceived to be, the difference in focus between the two groups. As I read the article, the doctors cited who were using social media seemed to be very patient focused. They view providing education as every bit as important as marketing. Decisions about what to include on the sites where heavily influenced by the needs of patients and people like them (see the swimming pool example in the article).

Contrast that with these two quotes from the article:

“doctors usually get paid only for talking to patients in the examining room, giving physicians little financial incentive to reach out to them over the Web.”

and

“They avoid the Internet because they enjoy the benefits of anonymity, privacy, efficiency and legal protection that come with dropping off the grid”

The article brings up the old argument that those who don’t use the tools are in danger of becoming irrelevant. It’s not the tools that will determine your relevancy. It’s not the tools. Doctor or otherwise, unless you have a monopoly on what you do, people need to be able to find you. They need to trust you. You need to talk to them.

Jeff Livingston’s quote at the end of the article sums it up nicely –

"If you go back two generations, doctors came to your house. They lived in your community. They probably went to the same church."

With social media, he says, "what we're really doing is going back and creating a more personal experience with technology."

Communication, community, personal connections – those will keep you relevant.