Inactive
Simplifying IT
for a complex world.
Platform partnerships
- AWS
- Google Cloud
- Microsoft
- Salesforce
For doctors
When patients search your name, they see review sites and directory profiles you may never have checked. We help make sure what they find is accurate and fair.
Reputation management for doctors is the ongoing work of making sure what patients find when they search a physician’s name, or a practice’s name, is accurate, current and fair: correct profiles on sites like Healthgrades, Vitals and RateMDs, a steady flow of genuine reviews, and a considered way of responding to criticism that never confirms or denies who has or hasn’t been a patient.
It isn’t about hiding anything. Medical board advertising rules limit what a practice can claim, and patient privacy limits how a practice can respond in public, so this work operates inside both constraints rather than around them.
It sits alongside, not instead of, your own clinical and compliance obligations. See how this applies more broadly on our reputation management page, or read the related considerations for larger practices on our healthcare reputation management page.
Most reputation problems get worse when ignored.
Doctor directories create profiles automatically, often with wrong details.
With few reviews, a single negative one shapes the whole picture.
Your name search is owned by directories, not you.
A well-meant reply to a bad review can accidentally confirm someone was a patient, which is its own problem.
Built on genuine reviews and accurate information.
We help you get more genuine reviews, respond well to criticism, and make sure the first page of results about you is accurate and up to date.
We don’t write fake reviews, we don’t try to get honest negative reviews removed, and we don’t promise to make legitimate news disappear. Those tactics break platform rules and usually make things worse when they come out.
We also won’t reply in a way that confirms or implies someone is a patient, even to correct an inaccurate claim. That protects you and the reviewer both, and it’s consistent with how medical boards expect practices to handle public criticism.
What doctors and practice managers usually want to know before they start.
A public reply that confirms, denies or discusses details of someone’s care can expose patient information, even when the goal is just to correct the record.
The safer pattern is a short, general reply that invites the reviewer to contact the practice directly, without ever confirming they are a patient.
Most medical boards restrict specific claims, like guaranteed outcomes or direct comparisons with other providers, in how a practice markets itself.
Review requests and responses need to stay inside those same limits, since they’re a form of the practice’s public communication.
A review about long wait times or a rushed appointment is a different problem from one describing a specific adverse outcome, and the two shouldn’t get the same response.
The first can be acknowledged generally and taken as feedback. The second needs to go through your practice’s compliance or legal process, not a marketing reply.
These profiles are often created automatically, and the details, specialty, address, insurance accepted, can be wrong from day one.
Each site has its own claiming and correction process, so fixing one doesn’t fix the others.
You can ask every patient, at a consistent point in their visit. You can’t offer anything in exchange for a review, and you can’t selectively ask only patients you expect to leave a good one.
A routine that treats every patient the same way is what keeps review requests both effective and compliant.
The reviewer is free to describe their own care in as much detail as they choose. The practice generally shouldn’t confirm, deny or add detail in a public reply, regardless of whether the review is accurate.
If the review raises something serious, that’s a conversation for your compliance process, separate from how it’s handled publicly.
The work moves in stages. Fixing what’s wrong comes first; a repeatable routine follows.
1Week 1
We review Healthgrades, Vitals, RateMDs, Google and your name’s search results to find what’s wrong, outdated or missing.
You get: a clear list of what needs claiming or correcting, and where.
2Weeks 2–3
We claim and fix the profiles that are wrong, and put a privacy-safe reply standard in place for handling criticism.
You get: accurate profiles and a clear standard for how your team responds.
3Ongoing
We set up a consistent way to ask every patient for a review, inside your medical board’s advertising rules.
You get: a steady flow of genuine reviews instead of a one-time push.
4Ongoing
We watch your name across these platforms and respond using the same privacy-safe standard every time, not case by case.
You get: a plain report on what changed and what’s new.
Healthcare adds rules that general reputation advice ignores. These checks help you tell who actually accounts for that.
Written by Nadir Yaqoob, Founder of South Asia Digital · Last updated October 2026
We treat patient privacy as a constant, not a judgment call made reply by reply. Every response standard we build assumes a public reply should never confirm, deny or add detail about anyone’s care, no matter how inaccurate the review seems.
This is reputation and marketing work, not legal or medical advice. Advertising rules vary by medical board and country, so specific compliance questions should go to your own legal counsel. We are a Dubai-based agency and work with practices and clinics worldwide; see examples of our broader work on the case studies page.
This work is priced by scope, so we’ll give you a fixed quote after a 20-minute call. No hourly surprises.
Yes. Keep the reply general, invite the reviewer to contact the office directly, and never confirm or deny that they are a patient.
Only if it breaks the review platform’s own rules, like being fake or off-topic. A genuine negative review, even an unfair one, usually stays up.
Yes. Most boards restrict specific claims, like guaranteed outcomes or comparisons with other providers, and review requests and responses stay inside those same limits.
A public reply shouldn’t confirm or deny that someone is a patient, even to correct an inaccurate review. That applies regardless of what the review says.
That’s different from a general complaint about wait times or communication, and it should go through your practice’s compliance or legal process rather than a marketing reply.
Yes. Claiming and correcting these profiles is part of the work, and each site has its own verification process.
By asking every patient at a consistent point in their visit, never offering anything in exchange, and never asking only the patients likely to leave a good review.
It’s priced by scope, based mainly on how many profiles and providers are involved, so we give a fixed quote after a short call rather than billing by the hour.
Book a strategy call. Send us your URL beforehand and we’ll have already looked at it when we talk, so you get specifics, not a sales pitch.