Replying to Negative Patient Reviews: 5 Templates

Replying to a negative review is a balancing act for medical practices: silence can quickly look like an admission of guilt to onlookers – while the wrong reply can breach medical confidentiality (the doctor’s duty of secrecy, Schweigepflicht, sect. 203 German Criminal Code) and, in the worst case, even destroy any later chance of removal. This article sets out the ground rules and five ready-to-use reply templates that avoid both.

The three ground rules before any reply

• Never confirm the treatment contact. Even a “We remember your appointment” publicly confirms that the person was a patient – this can breach medical confidentiality (sect. 203 German Criminal Code, professional code of conduct) and at the same time squanders the most important ground for removal, should the review later be challenged. Always phrase your reply as though you did not know whether any contact existed.
• No treatment details, no case-by-case justification. Diagnoses, appointments, billing matters or the content of conversations never belong in a public reply – not even if the reviewer has mentioned details themselves. You are replying for the onlookers, not for the reviewer.
• First settle the question of removal, then reply. If the review appears illegitimate (no identifiable patient, false assertions, insults), it should be checked before any reply whether removal is an option. We analyse this free of charge; the legal review is carried out by our partner lawyers. An ill-considered reply beforehand can compromise the procedure.

Template 1: The neutral standard reply

For factually worded criticism without a specific accusation.

“Thank you for your feedback. For reasons of medical confidentiality, we can neither confirm here whether a treatment relationship existed nor comment on any details. We always take criticism seriously. You are welcome to contact our practice management directly so that we can discuss your concern in person.”

Template 2: For criticism of waiting times or organisation

For complaints about appointment booking, telephone availability or waiting times.

“Thank you for raising this. Without being able to comment on any possible individual case: waiting times and availability are matters we work on continuously – for instance through our online appointment booking and additional telephone hours. If you wish, please get in touch with our practice team directly so that we can find a solution.”

Template 3: For unobjective or emotional criticism

Where the review is sharply worded but no removal has (yet) taken place.

“We are sorry that you describe a negative impression. Medical confidentiality does not permit us to comment publicly on any possible details – nor even on the question of whether there was any contact with our practice at all. A respectful, factual exchange matters to us. We are available for a personal conversation at any time.”

Template 4: For a review we cannot place

For reviews without text or from profiles that cannot be matched to any case. Caution: deliberately worded openly, so as to confirm nothing and rule out nothing.

“Thank you for your review. As it contains no further details, we are unfortunately unable to follow up on your concern. Should you have a specific matter you wish to raise, please contact our practice team directly – we will be happy to resolve it in person.”

Template 5: After a resolved complaint

Where the conflict has been settled in direct contact and the reviewer leaves the review in place.

“Thank you for the open exchange. Without going into any details: we are always pleased when concerns can be resolved in a direct conversation, and we remain reachable for feedback of this kind at all times. Our team will be glad to assist you in future as well.”

Common mistakes to avoid

• “At your appointment on …” – confirms the contact and appointment details: a confidentiality risk and the loss of the ground for removal.
• Counter-attack (“It was you who …”) – escalates publicly and hands the reviewer fresh material.
• A flood of boilerplate: Posting the identical reply word for word under every review looks automated. Adapt the templates slightly – without becoming any more specific in substance.
• Replying in the heat of the moment: Wait at least one night. The review is not going anywhere – a botched reply, however, is there to stay.

When replying is not enough: removal

A good reply limits the damage – it does not eliminate it. For reviews without a genuine treatment contact, with untrue statements of fact or with insults, removal is the better route. Under the case law of Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (BGH, case no. VI ZR 34/15), platforms such as Jameda must, upon a substantiated complaint, verify the treatment contact with the reviewer – if the evidence is not forthcoming, the review is removed. We handle the analysis and coordination; our partner lawyers handle the legal review and enforcement. The initial assessment is free of charge, and billing is purely on a no-win, no-fee basis (79 € per removed review).

All templates as a download

Would you like to have the five templates – supplemented by further variants for special cases and a checklist “Replying without confidentiality risk” – to hand in your practice? We will gladly send you the complete template PDF free of charge: simply leave your e-mail address and receive the PDF.

This article is general information, not legal advice. The legal review and enforcement of removal claims is carried out exclusively by cooperating lawyers.