A reputation that lives up to your care

Yes, unlike some European countries, US and UK rules do not ban a physician from asking a patient for a review, but the collection process itself is regulated. The FTC's Endorsement Guides (16 CFR Part 255) prohibit review gating, meaning you cannot selectively ask only satisfied patients while filtering out unhappy ones, and any testimonial you promote must reflect results patients like the reviewer typically get, per AMA Code of Medical Ethics guidance on advertising and testimonials. In the UK, the GMC's Good Medical Practice requires that any promotional activity stay honest and not misleading, and the ASA's CAP Code applies the same standard to health-related testimonials in ads. Some US state medical boards add their own advertising restrictions on top of these, so check your state board before running a structured review campaign.

In the US, a patient can post whatever they want in their own review since HIPAA regulates covered entities and their business associates, not patients, but the moment your practice responds and mentions a diagnosis, treatment, or visit reason, that reply can expose protected health information (PHI) under the HIPAA Privacy Rule (45 CFR Part 164). In the UK, information in a review that reveals a health condition falls under special category data in Article 9 of the UK GDPR, and the Data Protection Act 2018 applies the same sensitivity to anything your practice repeats or confirms. Practices in both markets stay bound by patient confidentiality when replying publicly, regardless of what the original reviewer chose to disclose. The HHS Office for Civil Rights has already sanctioned providers, including a Texas dental practice, for confirming patient details in a public reply to a negative review.

Platforms built for healthcare, such as Zocdoc, Healthgrades, and Vitals in the US, or Doctify and iWantGreatCare in the UK, typically let patients rate specific dimensions like wait time, bedside manner, and communication, often after verifying the person was actually a patient. Google Business Profile reviews are open to anyone, public by default, and not moderated by the practice, which is why they carry more reputational weight and, unlike specialty platforms, directly influence local search rankings and Google Maps visibility. Some healthcare-specific platforms also keep verified ratings inside their own directory rather than a shared public search index. Only the reviews on your Google Business Profile move the needle for local SEO, so it remains the priority even when you also maintain a strong profile on the specialty sites your patients already use to find a provider.

Yes, but the response must stay general and never confirm, deny, or add detail about whether the reviewer was a patient, what they were treated for, or any other identifying detail. In the US, this follows the HIPAA minimum necessary standard (45 CFR 164.502(b)), the principle that you disclose the least protected health information needed, which in a public reply means disclosing none at all. In the UK, the GMC expects a measured, professional tone that never turns into disguised advertising, and confidentiality obligations under UK GDPR apply the same way to any public statement. When a review contains information you cannot address without breaching confidentiality, the safer path in both markets is reporting the review to the platform for removal rather than replying directly, since a defensive response that unintentionally confirms details can itself create liability.

Start by flagging the review directly through Google, citing the specific policy it violates, such as harassment, conflict of interest, spam, or content unrelated to an actual visit, since Google removes reviews that break its own review policies rather than ones a provider simply disagrees with. In the US, a review containing outright false statements of fact can also support a defamation claim, though platforms are shielded from liability for third-party content by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, so any legal action targets the reviewer, not Google. In the UK, the Defamation Act 2013 gives a similar path against a reviewer for false factual statements, and it can push a website operator to act once notified, since ignoring a valid complaint can cost the operator part of its own liability protection. Neither country has a general regulator that will delist your Google Business Profile outright, so removal in practice always starts with the platform's own reporting tools.

Not automatically, since the room to maneuver depends on which board or regulator oversees your profession. In the US, state medical, dental, and other licensing boards each set their own advertising and testimonial rules on top of federal FTC requirements, so what is acceptable for a general practice may not be acceptable for a specialty bound by stricter board guidance. In the UK, doctors follow GMC standards while other regulated professions, such as dentists under the General Dental Council, apply their own similar codes on honesty and non-misleading promotion. Whatever your profession, a review collection tool should only ever make it easier for a patient to leave a review they already chose to write, never incentivize, cherry-pick, or reward that action, which is the one rule that holds across every board in both countries.