Social messaging about medical needs: the etiquette we often overlook

It is quite routine for patients to ask for their doctor’s personal telephone number at the end of a medical consultation. This request is often preceded by a promise that they will use it only in a dire emergency.

When communicating with a doctor through a messaging platform, convenience and easy access should never come at the cost of respect for professional boundaries.

From a wellintentioned initiative to an obligation

It is quite routine for patients to ask for their doctor’s personal telephone number at the end of a medical consultation. This request is often preceded by a reassuring promise that they will use it only in a dire emergency. Personally, I have been fairly liberal about sharing my number with patients. I have also encouraged them to share their investigation reports with me through social messaging platforms. My intention has been twofold: to spare patients unnecessary travel and waiting, and to free up OPD appointments so that more time can be devoted to new patients.

You Might Be Interested In

The advantages appeared obvious. Communication was fast, convenient and respectful of everyone’s time. It allowed me to access first-hand information rather than rely on secondhand interpretations, while sparing patients an unnecessary visit for something as straightforward as reviewing a blood report. I considered this a small but meaningful step towards making healthcare more accessible.

Thus far, it seemed a sensible, humane and consumerfriendly use of technology.

That was until an unexpected incident made me reconsider the assumptions underlying this arrangement. A patient, while submitting feedback to the hospital, attached a screenshot of our messaging conversation and complained of inefficiency on my part because I had neither seen nor commented on his reports for almost two hours.

The incident was an eyeopener. What was intended as an additional facility now somehow appeared to be an obligation on my part.

I soon realised that even the best of intentions can have unintended consequences, particularly when technology begins to blur the boundaries between professional courtesy and professional responsibility.

The expectation of instant responses

The most common misconception is that a message sent to a doctor should elicit an immediate response. The mere fact that a message has been delivered does not mean that the doctor has read it, understood its implications or had the opportunity to respond. A doctor may be examining a patient, performing a procedure, attending an emergency or simply engaged in activities that require undivided attention. Even when the phone is within reach, the doctor’s mind may be occupied elsewhere.

An unfortunate extension of this expectation is the follow-up telephone call made almost immediately after sending a message, ostensibly to remind the doctor that a message awaits attention. While the intention may be understandable, it defeats the very purpose of asynchronous communication. The convenience of messaging lies precisely in the fact that both parties can respond when circumstances permit. Patients must recognise that a doctor’s willingness to communicate electronically does not imply round-the-clock availability. Equally, doctors must establish reasonable expectations about response times so that neither party is left guessing.