What can you include in a response to a negative review?

Responses to negative reviews must not contain any information that confirms a patient-provider relationship or reveals details about the reviewer’s health condition. We recommend general, empathetic responses that signal a willingness to engage and encourage the reviewer to contact you directly. These responses are intended for all readers as well as the reviewer themselves.

Back to overview

Reputation Management for Healthcare Facilities

The Role of Reviews in Healthcare Marketing

A medical practice treats dozens of satisfied patients every day. Wait times are kept to a minimum, the staff is friendly, medical care is provided efficiently, and the results speak for themselves. And yet, the practice’s Google Business Profile shows an average rating of 3.8 out of 5. The reason: the satisfied majority of patients remain silent, but the one person who waited 40 minutes does not.

Review management for healthcare facilities operates under different rules than in other industries. The special protection of personal health data severely limits what can be responded to, and legal frameworks dictate how proactively reviews can be solicited. And since May 2026, Google has even been publicly displaying how often a facility has had reviews removed due to defamation. Those who know how to navigate the specific restrictions in the healthcare sector and learn to work with them rather than against them can still actively shape their facility’s review profile.

Written by
Published on
Last modified on

Max-Raphael Feibel
May 27, 2026
May 27, 2026

In this article, you will learn:

Why reviews play a disproportionately large role in healthcare

Relevant review platforms for medical facilities

What is and isn't allowed in performance management

Responding to Negative Reviews

Google's New Transparency: Deleted Reviews Will Be Publicly Viewable

Building Review Profiles: How to Make Satisfied Patients Visible

How we at Partner & Söhne help Partner & Söhne build their reputation

Get advice now

Why reviews play a disproportionately large role in healthcare

Reviews are more critical in the healthcare sector than in most other industries because they often serve as the first point of contact between a facility and potential patients. The Google Business Profile is usually viewed before a visit to the website or an appointment request, not after. Facilities that don’t have a strong foundation of reviews there lose patients before a conversation has even taken place.

Patients read reviews differently than consumers. A dental practice with a four-star rating can already raise concerns. A single detailed criticism of the pre-procedure explanation carries more weight than ten brief raves. The pressure to make a decision is greater because health and trust are at stake, and the threshold for switching to a comparable healthcare facility is correspondingly lower.

There is also a structural issue: reviews are mainly left by patients who are either very satisfied or very dissatisfied. The satisfied majority remains silent. This means that a single negative experience can quickly skew the overall picture, even though it is not statistically representative. Review management is therefore not an optional extra task, but an integral part of building a healthcare facility’s reputation.

Relevant review platforms for medical facilities

There are several relevant platforms for healthcare facilities, which differ in their reach and focus:

Google

The leading platform with the widest reach and the greatest impact on local visibility

Jameda

Specializing in doctors and clinics, with an audience specifically seeking specialized medical care

Sanego

Focus on patient testimonials regarding treatments and medications

Doctor Information

Medical directory with an integrated rating system and doctor search

Kununu

Employee reviews of employers, which are particularly relevant for larger institutions, as a structurally negative team atmosphere could also affect patients

Consistent monitoring across all platforms is essential for actively managing reputation. If you only monitor Google, you might overlook the fact that there has been unanswered criticism on Jameda for months. The platforms also differ in their policies regarding removal requests and in the visibility of their reviews in Google searches.

What is and isn't allowed in performance management

What is prohibited

Offering incentives for positive reviews is prohibited. For example, discounts, prize drawings among all reviewers, or other forms of compensation tied to leaving a review violate the platforms’ terms of service. Reviews must be provided entirely voluntarily.

What is allowed

However, it is permissible to actively encourage reviews without attaching any conditions. A prompt at the end of the visit, a friendly mention of the Google profile in the newsletter, or a QR code in the waiting room are legitimate ways to make the silent majority more visible.

What to look out for

One aspect that is often overlooked in practice is that the timing of the invitation to leave a review plays a significant role. Patients who are approached immediately after a successful treatment or a positive interaction are significantly more likely to leave a review than those who are reminded via email weeks later. However, care should always be taken to ensure that the invitation to leave a review is sent at the right moment and with the necessary tact. Asking patients for a review immediately after a stressful procedure or during an emotional conversation not only risks a refusal but also leaves a bad impression. The request is only appropriate if the situation allows it.

Responding to Negative Reviews

Failing to respond to negative reviews can cause lasting damage to an institution’s reputation, as its silence is often interpreted by outsiders as an implicit endorsement. At the same time, the response must not contain any information that could reveal details about the reviewer’s treatment, diagnosis, or personal circumstances.

This balancing act is the real challenge in healthcare review management. A response that addresses the specific circumstances described in too much detail may already violate medical confidentiality and GDPR requirements, even if the patient has publicly shared their own case. The facility must not confirm the treatment relationship, let alone its details.

The safest approach is to offer general, empathetic responses that make no reference to the specific case. A good response signals a willingness to engage in dialogue, encourages direct contact, and conveys a stance without delving into the specifics of the case. It may also explicitly state that, for legal reasons, further details cannot be disclosed. Such a response is directed not only at the reviewer but at everyone who will read the review.

Google's New Transparency: Deleted Reviews Will Be Publicly Viewable

Since May 2026, Google has been displaying the number of reviews that have been removed from a business listing for legal reasons. This number is visible to everyone. A practice with a good average rating that has submitted many removal requests now gives a different impression than before and may lead to skepticism. Prior to this change, a removal request was a discreet tool. Anyone who successfully had a review removed could do so without outsiders knowing how often this had happened. This lack of transparency no longer applies.

How institutions should interpret this trend

The display of deleted reviews changes the balance between deleting and responding. A well-founded legal request for deletion used to be a low-risk measure. From now on, it is visible and, depending on the context, can even become a reputational issue. Ten deleted reviews on a profile with 50 ratings send a signal that can be interpreted negatively, even if the deletions were entirely justified.

This does not mean that deletion requests should be avoided if they are justified on their merits. Defamatory or factually incorrect reviews can and should be challenged. However, this new transparency makes it more necessary than ever to use deletion requests in a truly selective manner and to treat them as a last resort, not as a standard response to unwelcome criticism.

The strategic implication

Anyone who has relied on deletion as their primary strategy should reconsider their approach. An active response strategy that addresses criticism openly and professionally builds more trust in the long run than a sanitized profile. Patients who see that an institution responds to critical comments objectively and empathetically often form a more nuanced impression than those who only see five-star reviews and a large number of deletions. In cases where a deletion request is justified based on content, we at Partner & Söhne assist you throughout the process. Where a professional response is more effective, we recommend this approach and support you in mastering the balancing act between an empathetic, clarifying, and data protection-compliant response.

Building Review Profiles: How to Make Satisfied Patients Visible

The structural imbalance between satisfied and dissatisfied reviewers cannot be eliminated, but it can be mitigated through consistent engagement. The goal is not to create an artificially positive image, but to ensure that the actual level of care is also visible online.

This doesn't require any complicated systems. In practice, three measures have proven to be the most reliable:

The follow-up message after the appointment

Those who politely remind patients that a review on Google or Jameda would help the practice are more likely to receive one than those who simply wait for it. This works just as well when done verbally as it does via a QR code in the waiting room, on a business card in the consultation room, or on the follow-up care sheet.

The proximity in time to the positive experience

Review requests sent shortly after a successful appointment or the completion of a treatment have significantly higher response rates than reminders sent weeks later. This is especially true for procedures or treatments where the results are immediately noticeable.

The low-barrier accessibility of the feedback channel

The fewer steps there are between the invitation and the review form, the more likely it is that the impulse will actually be acted upon. A direct link or QR code to the Google review page is more effective than a general reference to the search bar. Every business profile has a unique link that you can access from the profile view.

Do you have any questions?

Reputation management in the healthcare sector follows its own set of rules. We help you manage your review profile in compliance with data protection regulations, respond professionally to criticism, and ensure that the actual quality of care provided by your facility is clearly reflected online.

Get advice now

How we at Partner & Söhne help Partner & Söhne build their reputation

At Partner & Söhne , we Partner & Söhne healthcare facilities develop an evaluation profile that accurately reflects the actual level of care provided. This includes establishing a consistent monitoring system across all relevant platforms, developing standardized response templates that are formulated in compliance with data protection regulations while still conveying a clear stance, and providing guidance on the timing and format of the evaluation invitation.

The goal isn't a polished profile, but an authentic one: one that builds trust before the first contact has even taken place.

Frequently Asked Questions About Performance Management for Healthcare Facilities

Yes, healthcare facilities are permitted to actively encourage patients to leave reviews. The key requirement is that no compensation or reward is offered in exchange. A friendly reminder, a QR code in the waiting room, or a note in the follow-up letter are all permissible measures. Discounts, raffles, or other incentives for reviews, however, are not permitted and may be considered anti-competitive.

It makes sense to file a removal request if a review demonstrably contains false factual claims, is defamatory, or violates Google’s guidelines—for example, because it was written by someone who can be proven not to have been a patient. Since Google now publicly displays the number of reviews removed for legal reasons, the removal request should be used as a selective tool, not as a standard response.