Surgical Specialist, Urologists
16 years of experience

Accepting new patients
Valley Urological Associates
18699 N 67th Ave
Ste 230
Glendale, AZ 85308
623-935-5522
Locations and availability (4)

Patient Reviews ?

Overall Rating:
2.0
  • Currently 2 of 4 stars
Total Ratings

12

Total Reviews

5

Ratings
4 stars
3 stars
2 stars
1 star
Ease of Appointment:
  • Currently 2.125 of 4 stars
Promptness:
  • Currently 2 of 4 stars
Courteous Staff:
  • Currently 1.8571428571429 of 4 stars
Accurate Diagnosis:
  • Currently 2.25 of 4 stars
Bedside Manner:
  • Currently 1.75 of 4 stars
Spends Time with Me:
  • Currently 1.625 of 4 stars
Follows Up After Visit:
  • Currently 1.7142857142857 of 4 stars
Average Wait: 32 minutes
Some ratings provided by DrScore. Kudzu.
  • Currently 1 of 4 stars
 |  if you are diabetic dont use him  |  show details
Aug 26th, 2011

Im diabetic and everyone of his appointments have been LATE! He has never been ontime! Including day of surgery. He was an hour late for my surgery! When his P.A. finally showed up she blamed it on PV Hospital, Well I was in the room across from the nurses station, listening to thier phone calls trying to find Dr. Blick!! Dont use them

Mark as Helpful  | 2 people found this helpful Report Abuse
  • Currently 1 of 4 stars
 |  phone service is terrible  |  show details
Aug 2nd, 2011

They never answer their phones to schedule appts or when their is a problem.Patients have to go to office to schedule appts!

Mark as Helpful  | 2 people found this helpful Report Abuse
  • Currently 4 of 4 stars
 |  Craig  |  show details
Jul 14th, 2011

I had had a procedure for BPH at Dr. Russell's office in Scottsdale. He used green light laser surgery which did not work. I was out of town when the BPH surfaced again. I searched Phoenix to be able to get an appointment with a doctor. I was able to see Dr. Blick. I was most pleased with the time he tool with me and with his thoroughness in going through the records of the urologist I way when out of town. Though he could not perform this operation for a month because of prior bookings, he worked hard to reschedule me much earlier . The surgery went without a hitch. He performed TURP surgery this time and within two days, I was almost pain free. IT has now been a month, I am my old self-no incontinence and even successful sexual activities. I have hear some less successful stories about this procedure, but Dr. Blick was thorough, meticulous and sensitive to this issue. I would recommend him to anyone looking to have this.

  • Currently 3 of 4 stars
 |  Good Dr when you can see him  |  show details
by divonut on Jan 4th, 2009 on kudzu.com

He's a good Dr. & Surgon but a long wait for appt. and can be in a hurry when you get in the office.

Read Full Review at kudzu.com
  • Currently 1 of 4 stars
 |  show details
Dec 27th, 2008

5.MD-07-0798ASHAWN D. BLICK, M.D.27246Issue an Advisory Letter for inadequate medical records and inadequate informed consent for performing a new procedure. There is insufficient evidence to support discipline. Obtain 15-20 hours non-disciplinary CME in medical ethics within six months. The CME is in addition to the hours required for license renewal.Complainant WP spoke during the call to the public. Dr. Blick was present with legal counsel, Mr. Daniel Jantsch. Drs. Krishna and Petelin stated they know Mr. Jantsch, but it would not affect their ability to adjudicate this case. Bhupendra Bhatheja, M.D., Medical Consultant, stated that Dr. Blick misled a patient by failing to disclose that he would not be the surgeon of record and that this was his first live human case. Mr. Jantsch stated that the MC was never provided the Boards interview of the other surgeon involved in this case. Dr. Blick stated that he feels he provided the patient adequate informed consent. Dr. Petelin commented that it was erroneous and deceptive to document himself as the supervising physician of a procedure that he had no experience performing. Dr. Blick stated that he did not intend to mislead the patient and that he was never knowingly deceitful. Dr. Martin found that Dr. Blick was deceitful in having the other physician take credit for the procedure. Dr. Bhatheja pointed out that the other physician testified that he and Dr. Blick received credit for performing the procedure.MOTION: Dr. Petelin moved to enter into executive session.SECONDED: Dr. LeeVote: 10-yay, 0-nay, 0-abstain, 0-recuse, 2-absent.MOTION PASSED.The Board went into Executive Session for legal advice at 3:05 p.m.The Board returned to Open Session at 3:08 p.m.No deliberations or discussions were made during Executive Session.MOTION: Dr. Petelin moved for a finding of unprofessional conduct in violation of A.R.S. 32-1401(27)(e) - Failing or refusing to maintain adequate records on a patient; and A.R.S. 32-1401(27)(t) - Knowingly making any false or fraudulent statement, written or oral, in connection with the practice of medicine or if applying for privileges or renewing an application for privileges at a health care institution.SECONDED: Dr. MartinFinal Minutes for the October 8-9, 2008 Board MeetingPage 20 of 21Dr. Petelin stated that there is a preponderance of evidence to support that Dr. Blick was intentionally misleading and deceitful.VOTE: 5-yay, 4-nay, 1-abstain, 0-recuse, 2-absent.MOTION PASSED.Dr. Petelin stated that the patient should have been informed of the surgeons level of experience, providing the patient with the opportunity to choose whether he preferred to undergo the procedure with a more experienced physician.MOTION: Dr. Petelin moved for a draft Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order for a Letter of Reprimand for failing to inform the patient about his lack of experience, for failure to inform a patient that he was not going to be the surgeon of record for the robotic prostatectomy, and for inadequate medical records.SECONDED: Ms. IbezDrs. Krishna, Mackstaller and Schneider spoke against the motion as they believed this matter does not rise to the level of discipline.ROLL CALL VOTE: Roll call vote was taken and the following Board members voted in favor of the motion: Ms. Ibez and Dr. Petelin. The following Board members voted against the motion: Ms. Griffen, Dr. Krishna, Dr. Mackstaller, Dr. Martin, Dr. Pardo and Dr. Schneider. The following Board members were abstained: Dr. Lee and Ms. Proulx. The following Board members were absent: Drs. Goldfarb and Lefkowitz.VOTE: 2-yay, 6-nay, 2-abstain, 0-recuse, 2-absent.MOTION FAILED.MOTION: Dr. Krishna moved to issue an Advisory Letter for inadequate medical records. There is insufficient evidence to support discipline.SECONDED: Dr. SchneiderDr. Petelin spoke against the motion and reiterated that the patient was not adequately informed of the surgeons experience.ROLL CALL VOTE: Roll call vote was taken and the following Board Members voted in favor of the motion: Ms. Griffen, Dr. Krishna, Dr. Mackstaller, Dr. Pardo and Dr. Schneider. The following Board members voted against the motion: Ms. Ibez, Dr. Lee, Dr. Martin, Dr. Petelin and Ms. Proulx. The following Board members were absent: Drs. Goldfarb and Lefkowitz.VOTE: 5-yay, 5-nay, 0-abstain, 0-recuse, 2-absent.MOTION FAILED.MOTION: Dr. Schneider moved to issue an Advisory Letter for inadequate medical records and inadequate informed consent for performing a new procedure. There is insufficient evidence to support discipline. Obtain 15-20 hours non-disciplinary CME in medical ethics within six months. The CME is in addition to the hours required for license renewal.SECONDED: Dr. LeeROLL CALL VOTE: Roll call vote was taken and the following Board members voted in favor of the motion: Ms. Griffen, Ms. Ibez, Dr. Krishna, Dr. Lee, Dr. Mackstaller, Dr. Martin, Dr. Pardo, Ms. Proulx and Dr. Schneider. The following Board members voted against the motion: Dr. Petelin. The following Board members were absent: Drs. Goldfarb and Lefkowitz.VOTE: 9-yay, 1-nay, 0-abstain, 0-recuse, 2-absent.MOTION PASSED.NO.CASE NO.PHYSICIANLIC

Mark as Helpful  | 2 people found this helpful Report Abuse