Our blogs unpack algorithms behind Google, Healthgrades, and Yelp listings, emphasizing factors such as review volume, recency, and response rates that sway patient choice.
Step-by-step guides outline when and how to request feedback, recommended platforms, and wording that encourages honest responses without suggesting quid pro quo or violating platform rules.
We share HIPAA-compliant response templates, escalation protocols, and examples where an empathetic reply converted a critic into a promoter. Posts also discuss when silence—or legal action—is the best course.
Articles cover local-SEO fundamentals: NAP consistency, structured data, authoritative backlinks, and fresh blog content that outranks older negative press.
For malicious or demonstrably false posts, we outline conditions for cease-and-desist letters, takedown requests, and, if necessary, defamation suits—highlighting jurisdictional quirks and evidentiary needs.
It’s one thing to handle a negative review from a patient. It’s another when the attack comes from a former employee. The damage can be personal, professional, and lasting—and it often tempts physicians to respond in kind. Resist that temptation. There’s a better way forward. The first step is confirming the source. Online comments can … Read more
Your medical practice’s online reputation is a deciding factor for prospective patients, with reviews on platforms like Google, Healthgrades, and WebMD often providing a first impression of you as a provider and your practice. This means that accumulating enough positive reviews is critical to standing out among the competition. At Medical Justice, online reputation management … Read more
If you are a physician trying to protect your medical practice from false claims online and to bolster your reputation, you have several review-building program options—eMerit from Medical Justice (that’s us!), Birdeye, Weave, and Reputation Defender are some of the big ones. eMerit vs. Other Review-Building Programs While competitors promise some of the same core … Read more
On August 14, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) published its long-anticipated Final Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials (“Final Rule”), marking a significant development in the regulation of online reviews and endorsements (16 CFR Part 465). One section is labeled § 465.5 Insider Consumer Reviews and Consumer Testimonials. It discusses whether officers … Read more
Hell hath no fury like a dental patient scorned. One recent news flash: A woman in Lincoln County accused of slashing tires on 18 vehicles outside a dentist’s office has been arrested and charged, Lincolnton Police confirmed with Queen City News on Tuesday. Officers responded to calls regarding the incident Monday morning, July 29, outside … Read more
Ever heard of Hey Dude? It’s an online shoe retailer. In the crosshairs for manipulating online reviews. They received a Sasquatch-sized fine by the Federal Trade Commission. In the healthcare world, patients increasingly rely on online reviews to make healthcare decisions, such as who will be their doctor. Regulatory compliance in the past was an … Read more
Many moons ago – actually in the aughts – Medical Justice advocated for “non-disclosure agreements” to address the emerging problem of negative online reviews. Online reviews in healthcare were just gaining traction. Our belief, then, was that the vast majority of physicians were defined by no reviews or a handful of negative reviews. And physicians … Read more
MR Imaging is generally safe, but it’s easy to see how a patient can be injured if the team technicians become complacent. What do you think?
Your star rating and reviews on platforms like Google, Healthgrades, and WebMD have a real impact on your medical practice, as reviews are a key factor patients consider before deciding to schedule an appointment with you. While every physician will inevitably encounter negative reviews, proactively strengthening your online reputation by requesting patient feedback is a … Read more
Not long ago, our system picked up a negative Google review for a member of ours. The rating was one star and the comment was information-poor, meaning that it gave no specific information about the practice, the experience, or any kind of results. Further, the office could not identify the reviewer as a patient in … Read more
