A negative Google review can be frustrating, especially when a dentist believes the patient's description of what happened is incomplete or inaccurate. The natural reaction may be to explain what really happened so that anyone reading the review gets both sides of the story.
The problem is that a public review is not the same as a private conversation with a patient. A dentist has professional privacy obligations to consider, and a response intended to defend the practice can reveal information that should not be discussed publicly.
Health lawyer John McIntyre has seen this become an issue for dentists in Ontario. His advice highlights why practices need to be careful when responding to reviews and why speaking with a dental lawyer may be appropriate when there is a genuine privacy or regulatory concern.
The Patient Can Share Information That the Dentist Cannot
A patient may choose to describe their treatment, appointment or experience publicly. That does not necessarily give the dental practice permission to discuss the same information in its response.
This distinction can be easy to overlook when a dentist believes a review is unfair.
For example, you may want to explain that the patient missed several appointments, declined a recommended treatment or received a particular service. Even if those details would help explain the situation, discussing them publicly could disclose information about the person's relationship with the practice.
Instead of trying to prove the reviewer wrong, the response should avoid revealing information that the practice has a professional obligation to protect.
Even Small Details Can Create Problems
A privacy issue does not always involve revealing a diagnosis or describing a treatment.
John shared an example involving a dentist who responded to a negative review and addressed the reviewer by their full last name. The reviewer had only used their first name publicly.
By using additional identifying information, the dentist disclosed information the reviewer had not chosen to make public.
This is a useful reminder that practices should think beyond obvious clinical information when responding online. Names, appointment details and other information connected with a person's relationship with the practice may also require care.
Avoid Confirming More Than the Reviewer Has Made Public
One of the difficulties with online reviews is that a response can unintentionally confirm information simply through the way it is written.
A sentence such as “When you came in for your appointment...” may seem harmless, but it confirms that the person visited the practice. A response explaining what happened during treatment goes even further.
The safer approach is to keep the response general rather than discussing the individual's circumstances.
That does not mean the practice has to ignore a negative review. It means responding without turning a public review page into a discussion of the person's dental care.
Keep the Response Professional and General
John recommends keeping responses generic, professional and focused on the practice's commitment to patient care.
Instead of arguing about what happened, a response can acknowledge that the practice takes concerns seriously and encourage the person to contact the office directly if they would like to discuss the matter.
Moving the conversation away from a public platform allows the practice to address the concern through an appropriate private channel.
This approach also reduces the temptation to respond point by point to accusations in the review. The goal of the public response should not be to prove who is right. Instead, it can show that the practice takes concerns seriously without disclosing private information.
Make Sure Your Team Knows Who Should Respond
Dentists are not always the people monitoring Google reviews. An office manager, receptionist or marketing agency may receive the notification and prepare the response.
That makes it important to have a clear process for handling negative reviews.
Decide who is allowed to respond and make sure that person understands that treatment details, appointment history and other private information should not be included simply to defend the practice.
If an outside marketing company manages your reviews, the same principle applies. The person writing the response should understand that a dental practice has privacy obligations that businesses in other industries may not face in the same way.
Be Careful About How Reviews Are Collected Too
Responding to reviews is not the only area where practices can run into trouble.
John also warns dentists about fake reviews and other attempts to artificially increase a practice's online rating.
According to John, he has represented clients who had to match Google reviews with actual patient records to demonstrate that the reviews were genuine. This can become difficult when patients use nicknames or usernames instead of their real names.
Practices should therefore focus on earning genuine patient feedback rather than using methods that could create misleading reviews.
Have a Review Policy Before a Problem Happens
The worst time to decide how your practice handles negative reviews is when an upsetting one has just appeared.
Create a simple process in advance. Decide who monitors reviews, who approves responses and when a concern should be brought to the dentist or an appropriate professional before anything is posted.
The rules that apply to dentists can vary by jurisdiction, so practices should follow the privacy and professional requirements that apply where they practise.
Most importantly, avoid treating a Google review like an ordinary online argument. Patients may choose to discuss their experiences publicly, but dentists still have professional obligations to consider when deciding what they can say in response.
Comments