Bad Google Review? A Psych Practice's Playbook

14 August 2026·8 min read

Quick answer: Respond briefly, warmly, and generically — never confirm or deny that the reviewer was a client, even to defend your practice. Acknowledge the feedback, invite them to get in touch privately, and stop there; anything more specific risks a confidentiality breach under the Privacy Act and AHPRA's Code of Conduct. Some reviews (fake, defamatory, or clearly not from a client) should be flagged to Google rather than responded to at all. Get the response right and a one-star review can actually make your practice look more trustworthy, not less. 🤍

Here's the moment that makes most practice managers' stomachs drop: a notification pings, and there it is — a one-star Google review sitting under your practice name for anyone Googling "psychologist near me" to see. For most businesses, that's just an annoying Tuesday. For a psychology practice, it's genuinely fraught, because the thing that makes you trustworthy — discretion, confidentiality, the fact that you'd never discuss a client's business in public — is exactly what makes responding feel impossible. You can't defend yourself the way a café or a tradie can. That instinct to explain is completely human, and it's also the fastest way to breach confidentiality.

Handled well though, a bad review is a genuine opportunity to show prospective clients your practice is calm, ethical and human under pressure — that's the bit we love about this work 💖 handled badly, it becomes a second, self-inflicted problem sitting right next to the first one.

What most psychology practices get wrong

Most practices swing to one of two extremes, and both are costly. The first is silence — reviews sit unanswered for months because nobody's sure what's "allowed," which reads to prospective clients as either not caring or having something to hide. The second, more damaging extreme is over-explaining: a well-meaning practice manager writes a defensive reply that confirms specifics about a client's contact with the service — which is a textbook confidentiality breach, even if every word is true and even if the reviewer started it. AHPRA doesn't care who was right. The moment you confirm someone was a client, you've disclosed health information without consent.

A few other common misses: treating every review as worth a public reply (some genuinely aren't); letting the most anxious person in the practice write the response under pressure, with no sign-off step; deleting or hiding reviews instead of responding (you generally can't, and trying looks worse); and replying instantly, in anger, before anyone's had a chance to think it through.

The never-confirm response template

Use as-is or adapt the tone. The pattern: acknowledge, don't confirm, redirect privately, close warmly.

"Thank you for sharing this feedback. We take all feedback seriously and are sorry to hear you feel this way. As a psychology practice, we're not able to discuss any individual's contact with our service publicly, out of respect for client confidentiality — this applies whether or not someone has been a client here. We'd genuinely welcome the chance to hear more and address any concerns directly — please contact our practice manager at [email/phone] at your convenience."

Swap-in lines depending on context:

If a specific complaint is named (wait times, billing, a staff interaction): "We're always working to improve [wait times / our booking process / communication] and would value the chance to understand what happened in your case."
If the review is vague (just a star rating, no detail): "We'd love the opportunity to understand your experience better — please reach out directly so we can look into this."
If you suspect the reviewer was never a client: don't say so publicly. Report to Google instead (see checklist below).

Internal escalation checklist (before anyone hits "reply"):

Screenshot the review immediately, with date and reviewer name visible, in case it's later edited or removed
Check: does the review name a specific staff member, diagnosis, session detail, or anything identifying? If yes, treat as higher-risk — practice principal or clinical director signs off before reply
Never confirm, deny, or hint at a therapeutic relationship — in the reply, in follow-up comments, or via a second account
One authorised person drafts and posts the reply — not whoever saw it first
If defamatory, clearly fake, or from a non-client: flag to Google for removal via "Report review" rather than replying publicly
Log every review and response in a shared file so there's a record if a pattern emerges or a complaint escalates

How this looks in real practices

Solo psychologist, specific complaint about wait times: A solo practitioner gets a two-star review: "Waited 25 minutes past my appointment time, no explanation given, wouldn't recommend." Reply: "Thank you for your feedback — we're sorry your appointment didn't start on time. We know how disruptive that is and we're actively reviewing our scheduling to reduce this happening. If you'd like to discuss your experience directly, please reach out to us at [email]." No confirmation of a client relationship, but it directly owns the operational issue.

Group practice, vague one-star review with zero detail: A six-psychologist practice gets a bare "1 star," no text, no name recognisable to any clinician. Rather than guessing or ignoring it, the practice manager posts a short generic reply: "Thanks for taking the time to leave a rating. We'd really value the chance to understand what prompted this — please contact us at [email/phone] so we can look into it." This signals the practice responds to feedback while giving a genuine complainant an easy path to follow up.

Review that appears to be from someone who was never a client: A practice receives a scathing review naming a psychologist who left the practice months prior, describing a session that doesn't match anyone's booking records, posted by an account with no other local reviews. This is the case where you do not reply publicly at all — a public reply, even a generic one, lends the review legitimacy. Instead: report the review to Google as fraudulent/policy-violating, document your reasoning internally, and only respond publicly if it stays live after 1–2 weeks — with the same never-confirm template, not a rebuttal of the facts.

The mechanics

In practice, this needs a simple internal workflow, not a policy document nobody reads. Set up Google Business Profile alerts (or a monthly calendar reminder) so reviews don't sit unnoticed for weeks — silence is its own reputational risk. When one lands, route it through the escalation checklist above before anyone types a reply. For anything naming a specific complaint that could be legitimate, loop in the person best placed to know if there's a genuine service issue to fix — because the best long-term review strategy isn't a clever reply, it's fixing the thing that's actually generating complaints. Keep every reply under 3–4 sentences. Longer replies almost always start drifting toward detail you shouldn't confirm.

💡 Reality check: You will not win every review. Some stay up despite being unfair, some prospective clients will scroll past your best, most professional response anyway, and Google's removal process is slow and inconsistent even for reviews that clearly violate policy — plan your response around protecting confidentiality and demonstrating good process, not around guaranteeing the review disappears.

Mistakes to avoid

Confirming, even indirectly, that someone was or wasn't a client ("we don't have anyone by that name in our system" is still a disclosure)
Arguing the facts of the complaint in the public reply
Letting a junior staff member post without sign-off from someone with clinical/practice authority
Responding in anger within the first hour — wait, draft, review, then post
Assuming a fake review will resolve itself if ignored — report it through Google's process instead
Trying to solicit a wave of new positive reviews to "bury" the bad one — this is both a poor look and a compliance risk under AHPRA's rules on testimonials

Please note: general information, not legal or clinical advice — practices should check the current AHPRA Code of Conduct, advertising guidelines and Privacy Act obligations, and seek professional advice for their specific situation.

Frequently asked questions

Can we ever say "this person was not a client of our practice"?

It's safest not to, even when true. Confirming or denying any connection to a named individual can constitute a disclosure, and getting it wrong (misremembering, a name mix-up, an intake enquiry that didn't proceed) creates real risk. Keep the reply generic regardless of whether you believe the reviewer was ever a client.

Should we ask Google to remove a review?

Yes, for reviews that are clearly fake, defamatory, or from someone with no connection to a genuine service experience — use Google's "Report review" flow via your Business Profile. Reviews that are simply negative but plausible generally won't be removed just because you disagree with them.

What if the review reveals details only a real client would know?

This is the hardest scenario, and honestly there's no clean fix — you still can't confirm the relationship publicly, even though the specificity is frustrating. The trade-off is real: staying silent on the facts can feel unsatisfying, but it's the position that protects both the client's privacy and your registration. Handle it privately by inviting direct contact, and keep the public reply as brief and generic as any other.

How quickly should we respond to a negative review?

Within a few business days is a reasonable target — fast enough to show you're paying attention, slow enough to get proper sign-off. There's no compliance requirement on timing, but a reply posted six months later reads as reactive rather than attentive.