How veterinary practices can improve online reviews and build client trust

When I ran my practice, I took professional advice on our online reputation, sent a member of staff on a training course, and hired a company to monitor our feeds, schedule posts and advise on how to respond. Good clinical care was not going to manage what appeared about us in a search result. Other people's words were doing that.

What people are really doing when they read veterinary reviews

People aren't looking for the same thing they look for in restaurant reviews. They're trying to decide whether they'd trust you with their dog.

A practice with 40 recent, well-replied reviews is often more compelling than one with 200 sitting unanswered from three years ago. Recency and response rate signal that someone is still paying attention.

A recent survey of 2,000 pet owners across the UK and Australia found that among those under 35, 88 percent always or often check reviews before selecting a clinic. Trust was the single most important factor, ahead of convenience or price. In broader healthcare, the large majority of consumers say they check reviews before choosing a provider. None of that decision happens after the first phone call.

How I read negative reviews

In my experience, a negative review never actually changed how I operated. Not because I ignored them, but because I already knew. The issues that came up through reviews had already come through client surveys.

I trusted my surveys far more than my reviews.

A single negative review is rarely representative. What I paid attention to was pattern: if the same complaint appeared more than once, it probably had some validity. That is the signal worth acting on.

Responding without making it worse

My approach was less is more. Acknowledge the emotion. Do not apologise in a way that implies the criticism is correct. Offer to talk in person.

There is also a clinical reason to keep it short. The RCVS Code of Professional Conduct treats client and patient information as confidential, and that duty does not lift because someone has posted publicly. A detailed public reply that reveals what was discussed in the consult, even in response to an unfair review, creates a professional conduct problem alongside the reputational one.

Something like: "We're sorry to hear you were unhappy with your experience. Please contact the practice manager directly so we can look into this properly" does the job. It acknowledges the concern, invites resolution, and keeps everything sensitive out of public view.

A long rebuttal almost never changes the original reviewer's mind. It does give every future reader a worse impression than the review did on its own.

The habits that show up in the reviews later

By the time someone writes a review, whatever caused it has already happened.

The practices with consistently strong profiles tend to do the same things that reduce missed appointments: communicating clearly before the visit and being honest about costs. As CMA pricing transparency requirements take effect, that upfront honesty matters more. A client who knew what to expect, even when the bill is significant, almost never writes that they felt misled.

Asking for reviews consistently is the other underinvested habit. A message sent shortly after a positive consult produces a very different result from a generic prompt sent weeks later with no particular memory attached.

Where to start

Check your Google profile. Count how many reviews in the last six months have no reply. That is the gap. Not the star rating, not the total volume. The unanswered ones are what a prospective client notices first.

Reply consistently, keep negative responses short, and ask after positive consults. To see how Lupa OS supports the client communication that underlies all three, book a demo.