Medical review policy
Clinic Partner Guide compares health services. It does not give medical advice, and this policy describes the line between the two and how the system enforces it.
What we compare
We compare providers only on factors that can be checked against a public record: licensing and credentials, the regions a provider is verified to serve, how a consultation actually works, what a provider publishes about price, and the policies it makes available. We do not assess clinical quality, treatment outcomes or safety, and we do not rank providers numerically.
What requires review
Content is classified by risk. Provider directories, verified availability, public pricing and operational comparisons are lower risk and publish under normal editorial verification. Anything that touches treatment efficacy, dosage, side effects, contraindications, medical superiority or clinical recommendation is higher risk.
Higher-risk language is detected automatically before publication. When it is found, the page cannot publish unless a credentialed medical reviewer is assigned and its strongest source is regulatory or peer-reviewed. Detection is deliberately over-inclusive: a false positive costs one human review, whereas a false negative would put unreviewed clinical content in front of a reader.
Who reviews
No credentialed medical reviewer is currently configured. Until one is, every page containing clinically consequential content is blocked from publication by the publishing system. This is the intended behaviour, not an outage.
Reviewer credentials
A reviewer is only usable if their credential can be checked against a public register. A stated qualification with no verifiable registry entry is not accepted by the system, and we do not publish reviewers we cannot evidence.
Review dates
Reviewed pages display who reviewed them and when. A review date is only set when a review actually happened.