Reputation • 6 min read
A Review Strategy That Works for Healthcare Clinics
A clinic review process starts with permission: what the practitioner's college allows, what Google allows and what can be communicated without compromising privacy. For some professions, public review requests are not an appropriate option.
Before you start: eligibility and college rules
Sort this out before you build any review process, because it decides whether you can run one at all.
Request reviews only from people who actually received your clinic's services. Google requires that reviews reflect a genuine customer experience, and it treats reviews arising from a conflict of interest, such as a current or former employment or a professional relationship, as prohibited. A colleague's endorsement from someone who did not receive your services is not a valid Google review.
Solicitation, promotional use and public responses are separate questions. CRPO prohibits soliciting testimonials and using them in advertising. OCSWSSW prohibits soliciting client reviews or endorsements. CMTO's current standard prohibits testimonials in advertising and requires reasonable steps to disable, remove or disassociate relevant social-media testimonial content. CONO prohibits promotional testimonials. CPBAO prohibits testimonials used to promote services. Consult the applicable standard before selecting a workflow; delegating the task does not remove the practitioner's obligations.
An optional workflow, only where permitted
Where solicitation is permitted, choose a voluntary request method appropriate to patients' preferences. Same-day SMS is one possible timing choice, not a proven optimum or a requirement.
Do not trigger messages solely because an appointment was completed. First confirm professional permission, communication preferences and the applicable messaging requirements. Allow people to decline without pressure or repeated requests.
What to send, exactly
Keep any permitted request neutral and optional. Explain that the review would be public. Do not include clinical details or ask the patient to disclose them. Have the actual message reviewed with its sender details and opt-out mechanism before use.
Use neutral eligibility criteria rather than selecting people for likely praise. Google prohibits incentives, review gating, pressure and requests for specified review content. Do not set staff review quotas. These platform rules do not override a college's prohibition.
For electronic requests, assess CASL applicability and any exception. Where it applies, document consent and include the required identification and unsubscribe information. Implied consent has conditions and time limits; a former patient is not automatically contactable indefinitely.
What never to do
Do not offer discounts, draws, or any incentive for reviews; it violates Google's review policies and can lead to content removal or action against your profile. Do not review-gate (asking happy patients for public reviews while routing unhappy ones to a private form); Google prohibits it. Do not write reviews for patients, post from staff accounts, or buy reviews; these violate Google's policies, risk removal and penalties, and do not build the genuine record patients and search engines are looking for.
Handling negative reviews without breaching privacy
Do not disclose or confirm a care relationship in a public response. The reviewer sharing information does not automatically authorize the clinic to discuss it. Check the relevant professional standard before replying.
Some situations call for no public response. CPBAO prohibits a response that could identify a current or former recipient of services. Where a response is otherwise permitted, keep it general and direct concerns to an appropriate private channel without referring to the person's care.
Do not promise to respond to every review. Assign someone to assess privacy, professional restrictions and whether a platform-policy report is appropriate before taking action.
Reviews and AI answers
There is no established rule in this guide connecting review wording or frequency with AI citations. Do not solicit prohibited reviews or engineer their content in pursuit of AI visibility.
Operationalizing it: who, when, and how to keep it running
Assign an owner for policy checks, consent records, approved wording and opt-outs. If automation is permitted, test exclusions and withdrawals before enabling it. Do not treat an automated appointment trigger as proof that every recipient is eligible.
Review the process periodically for inappropriate requests, complaints and failed opt-outs. Where requests are permitted, aggregate counts can help assess the workflow; avoid review quotas or pressure to meet a rating target.
For help reviewing your clinic's public online presence, contact MyClaimReady.
Sources
Google, Prohibited and restricted content (incentivised or biased reviews; conflict of interest; requesting specific content; review gating): support.google.com/contributionpolicy/answer/7400114
Google, Improve your local ranking on Google (review count and score): support.google.com/business/answer/7091
CRPO Advertising Standard: crpo.ca/practice-standards/business-practices/advertising
CMTO Standard of Practice, Advertising and Social Media: cmto.com/rules/standard-of-practice-advertising-and-social-media
CONO Standard of Practice for Advertising: collegeofnaturopaths.on.ca/resource-library/standard-advertising
CPBAO Standards of Professional Conduct: cpbao.ca/members/professional-practice/standards-of-professional-conduct
OCSWSSW, Advertising and Communications: ocswssw.org/sop/principle-vii-advertising-and-communications
CRTC, CASL Guidance on Implied Consent: crtc.gc.ca/eng/com500/guide.htm
Frequently asked questions
Want a specific read on your clinic?
Send your clinic URL and we will record a free Clinic Growth Score - three things to fix this week, specific to your practice. No pitch in the video.