How we verify, what we publish and how we calculate the average

A review becomes public only if its author can prove they were a patient. There are four proof paths, and each one leaves behind a check rather than a claim:

Enrolled procedure

The patient is already on the practice's records, and the review is tied to a real procedure in their file.

QR code

The code handed over at the end of the visit opens the form once and stays tied to that visit.

Reception code

A short code, given at reception, checked on the server. It cannot be looked up backwards and it does not stay valid indefinitely.

Receipt

Proof of payment, uploaded by the patient and checked before the review goes public.

We do not publish reviews without one of those four proofs. We do not take text from elsewhere and present it as a review written on the platform: when we display information gathered from public sources, we say so explicitly and we attribute it to the clinic, not to the doctor.

After submission, the review enters a mediation window of 7 days. During it, the practice can reply or settle directly with the patient what happened. At the end of those 7 days the review is published automatically. Publication goes through no approval, neither ours nor the doctor's.

We do not ask only satisfied patients for a review, and we do not choose who gets the invitation based on the rating we would expect. We do not filter by content and we do not hide a text because it is critical.

We hide a review only for reasons of content, such as someone else's personal data, prohibited language, or medical claims we are not allowed to publish, and never for the rating in it. The reason is recorded.

A doctor's average is the average of every review published on their profile. No exceptions: reviews written by participants in the documentation programme count too, exactly like any other.

There is no alternative average, no second cleaned-up score and no hidden weights favouring anyone. A review left out of the average would mean a profile that looks better than it is, which is precisely the thing the platform exists to make pointless.

The platform thanks patients who document their journey: access to their own compiled file and, at the second tier, a voucher redeemable with a third-party supplier. Three things, which are the structure of the programme:

• The reward comes from the platform. The doctor does not fund it, does not choose it, cannot speed it up or block it, and is not told it was granted.
• It is granted for participating and for documenting the journey. It does not depend on the rating, the tone, the length, or on the participant deciding in the end to publish nothing.
• Participation is optional and explicit. Anyone who stays out of the programme uses the platform in exactly the same way.

Reviews written by participants carry a secondary line saying the author received a thank-you from the platform for documenting their journey, whatever the rating. The thank-you comes from us, never from the doctor or the practice.

The full rules, who can take part, what is granted, the tax treatment, what happens if a review is withdrawn, are public: Rules of the documentation programme.