Get noticed and earn consumer confidence. Turn patient survey responses into real, reliable reviews published right to your website.
Transparency
​
Contributions
Design Date
2024
Transparency screens for protected health information (PHI), libel, and profanity. So you’ll only ever be publishing helpful, high-quality reviews.
Reviews are the #1 factor in a patient’s decision. The more you have, the more precise the picture, and the more likely patients will book with you.
Give would-be patients the reviews and CAHPS data they need to know they’re in good hands when they’re in your hands.
55%
Patients who won't see a physician rated under 4 stars (out of 5)
Providers already have an online reputation—whether they join the conversation or not. Online reviews might not be telling the whole story. Not enough reviews might raise a few eyebrows. Or one unhappy patient could be dragging the provider's whole image down. Transparency lets you regain control of your online presence. And then grow your reputation from there.
Reusable filter to filter ease across pages and products.
Flags wrap around comments, making it easier for users to prioritize.
Recommendations to make it easier to tackle what's essential.
Feedback Sentiment
Sentiment analysis uses what patients write to reveal how they feel. Comments are categorized automatically, so it’s easy to spot their pain points.
“A patient came in and said, ‘I picked you because of your star ratings.’ They know we’ll post any review that’s pertinent to that provider—the good, the bad, and the ugly. It provides the validation that positive comments are real.”
Jason Bash
Digital Communications Manager, Nebraska Medicine
While quality remained paramount, quantity also carried weight. Nebraska Medicine had discovered that the number of reviews a physician garnered was as crucial as their overall rating. The team emphasized the significance of displaying the volume of reviews, attributing it to enhancing physicians' credibility. A high volume, such as 300 reviews and genuine comments, could sway a patient's decision.
Continuously accumulating ratings and reviews acted as a buffer against sporadic negative feedback. Research showed patients sought consistency in stories, recognizing outliers as rare occurrences. As Nebraska Medicine's ratings ascended, patients approached low scores with discernment, understanding them as exceptions rather than the norm. Negative reviews, thus, contributed to transparency and demonstrated honesty with patients, yet they typically didn't deter patients from choosing a provider. Ultimately, this dynamic represented a substantial victory for the institution.
