The star-rating sections below cover the full range of reviews the network receives. Every response — regardless of rating — follows the same voice principles and SEO conventions at the top of this page. Positive-review templates (5★, 4★) can be posted directly by the practice. 3★ reviews should be read carefully — some are entirely positive with a small caveat, others contain a specific complaint that still needs escalation. 1–2★ reviews split into templates that can be handled directly and templates that require internal routing before any substantive response is posted.
Ownership across the full lifecycle of a review — from receipt through public response, escalation, Google reporting, appeal, and case closure. All ownership was resolved on August 14, 2026 (see the green summary below the table).
| Role | Owns |
|---|---|
| Office Manager | Investigates the underlying concern; attempts private patient outreach; drafts and posts the public response on the practice's assigned platform (Swell, PromoRepublic, or manual GBP); decides (based on the Google policy checklist) whether a review is reportable; files the report; submits the one-time appeal when eligible; escalates to the appropriate team when authority is exceeded; documents the final resolution and closes the case. |
| Regional Operations Director | Backs up the Office Manager on cross-office or repeat complaints; approves escalations that require operational leadership; holds the Office Manager accountable for executing this SOP — including the reporting and appeal workflow. |
| Growth Manager | Coordinates complaint-resolution, follow-up, and care-coordination escalation themes; helps the practice interpret ambiguous or brand-sensitive reviews. |
| Ops SLT Operations Senior Leadership Team |
Owns the immediate safety-threat protocol (threats of harm, active safety concerns). |
| Legal / Compliance | Owns the PatientEscalations@sgadental.com inbox — receives escalations that exceed Office Manager authority. Owns legal threats, dental-board complaints, regulator inquiries, media inquiries, discrimination allegations, HIPAA / privacy allegations, and fraud allegations. Owns the LegalNotices@sgadental.com inbox and the Compliance / Privacy escalation path. Clears all response language for these categories before anything is posted publicly. Reviews Google-report appeals when the underlying review touches legal-sensitive content. |
| Clinical Leadership / CDO | Approves any public response that touches diagnosis, treatment outcomes, pain management, or provider empathy. Owns the substantive position on clinical-concern reviews. |
Doctor feedback on the first draft of these templates was direct: "I don't want to be cheesy." The principles below exist to keep every response — from a glowing 5★ to a difficult 1★ — sounding like a real person from the practice, not a marketing team.
Google surfaces review responses in local search results. A well-written response that includes the practice name, city, and relevant service terms can reinforce the location's keyword footprint — without keyword stuffing. The rule is the same across all star ratings: one of each, once, and only if it fits. Overloading a positive review with services the patient never mentioned is the single most obvious signal that a response is templated or AI-generated.
5★ responses are the easiest to get wrong. The default is to match the reviewer's enthusiasm with more enthusiasm — that's what reads as cheesy. The move here is specificity + brevity: name back what they named, thank them once, close with something real. Keep them varied — a 5★ response that reads identically across three locations is a Google red flag.
Sample response:
SEO used: Provider name · Practice name · (city implied by profile)
Sample response:
SEO used: Service term (mirrored from review) · Practice name · City
Sample response:
SEO used: Practice name · (empathy language builds trust for other anxious searchers reading the profile)
Sample response:
SEO used: Practice name · "new-patient" · "cleaning" (only because the natural next-visit reference)
Sample response:
SEO used: Practice name · City · nothing invented
Sample response:
SEO used: Procedure term (mirrored) · practice name optional if it fits
A 4★ almost always has an implied "but." Something small held the reviewer back — a wait time, a front-desk moment, a mild pricing surprise. The move is: acknowledge what worked, signal you noticed there was room to improve, invite them to say more offline. Never write "we'd love to earn that 5th star next time" — patients read that as needy and it reflects badly on the practice. If the 4★ mentions a theme that would trigger escalation on a 1–2★ (billing, clinical concern), route the same way.
Sample response:
Voice note: "We'd want to know" is deliberately understated — it invites without begging. No mention of the missing star.
Sample response:
Voice note: Calling out that it's "not a canned line" is disarming and honest. Only use once — if it becomes its own template, it becomes canned.
Sample response:
SEO used: Practice name · anchors the clinical praise, which is the highest-value part of the review to reinforce
3★ is the hardest tier to write for. It's a mixed signal — the patient came, something worked, something didn't, and they're not writing to burn the practice down. Real engagement matters here more than any other rating: a canned response converts a lukewarm patient into a former patient.
Read the review twice before drafting. If it mentions billing, insurance, clinical outcomes, sales pressure, or anything else on the escalation list — route it through the same escalation flow as a 1–2★ before posting anything substantive. If it's a genuine "some things worked, some didn't" without those flags, the templates below apply.
Sample response:
Voice note: "Not something we're going to argue with" is a small but meaningful phrase — it signals the practice is going to take the feedback seriously, without a lot of corporate flowers.
Sample response:
Voice note: "Didn't fully land" acknowledges the middle rating without over-apologizing. The word "genuinely" earns its keep here — read the sentence without it and it feels colder.
Holding response (post within 24 hrs while internal routing happens):
Then route through the same escalation flow below. A 3★ that mentions billing or clinical needs the same internal review as a 1★ with the same theme — the rating doesn't change the underlying question.
When PromoRepublic detects a new 1★ or 2★ review, it notifies the Office Manager. The steps below cover what happens from alert to closure. Public-response templates for each theme sit in the two sections that follow this one.
Automation note: Where a practice has opted into automated response for no-escalation themes, an initial public reply may already be posted by the time this workflow begins. The Office Manager's job in that case is to verify the auto-response was appropriate, complete any private outreach, and escalate if the review turns out to touch a higher-risk theme.
Before responding or escalating, confirm the following:
Match the complaint to one of the six levels below. If the review touches more than one level, route to the highest-risk level.
| Level | Examples | Route |
|---|---|---|
| Office-level service recovery | Scheduling, wait time, billing confusion, communication, staff interaction, or another issue the Office Manager can reasonably address | Office Manager handles outreach and posts the response using the appropriate template in the sections below |
| Internal patient escalation | Office Manager cannot resolve; patient requests leadership involvement; complaint is repeated or serious; requested resolution exceeds Office Manager's authority | PatientEscalations@sgadental.com — owned by Legal. |
| Clinical concern | Alleged harm, treatment outcome, medication issue, diagnosis, clinical standard-of-care concern, or any matter requiring provider review | Escalate through the clinical escalation process; loop in Clinical Director / CDO. Do not debate clinical facts publicly. |
| Compliance or privacy | HIPAA / privacy allegation, discrimination, accessibility, harassment, suspected fraud, or any other compliance concern | Route to Legal. Copy Patient Escalations (Legal) only if policy requires it. |
| Legal or third-party matter | Attorney contact, legal demand, subpoena, dental-board complaint, regulator, insurer investigation, or media inquiry | LegalNotices@sgadental.com — owned by Legal. Do NOT use the Patient Escalations inbox as the primary route for these matters. |
| Immediate safety threat | Threat of harm, active safety concern, or emergency language in the review or in patient contact | Follow the emergency / safety protocol immediately — owned by Ops SLT. Do not wait for the normal review-response workflow. |
Not every 1–2★ review is a legal or escalation matter. The majority route through office-level service recovery — the higher-risk levels exist for the small share that need them.
When the patient can be identified and the concern is within office authority, attempt private contact before or alongside the public response. The objective is to:
Do not:
Use the theme-matched template in the 1–2★ No-Escalation Templates or 1–2★ Escalation-Required Templates sections. All 1–2★ public responses must follow the Voice Principles and the SEO conventions above.
Internal resolution does not remove the need for a public response. A well-written response is often the most visible signal that a practice takes complaints seriously — unless Legal or Compliance directs otherwise, post one.
If the matter cannot be resolved at office level, submit to PatientEscalations@sgadental.com (owned by Legal). Include the following:
Subject-line format:
Do not put protected health information in the subject line. Subject lines are scanned by many systems and staff — keep identifiers non-clinical.
This is a real email the Office Manager sends when the office cannot resolve the matter on its own.
Use the buttons below the template to open it in your mail app (Outlook / Gmail) with the address and subject pre-filled,
or copy the body and paste it into a new email. Fill in every [bracketed field] before sending.
Practice: [Practice Name, City, State] Office Manager: [Name, phone, email] Review platform: [Google / Facebook / other] Review URL: [Link] Review date: [Date] Star rating: [1 or 2] Reviewer public name: [As shown on the review] Screenshot attached: [Yes / No] Patient (internal only, if confirmed): Name: [Full name] Contact: [Phone / email] Complaint summary: [2–4 sentence factual summary — no clinical detail beyond what the review itself made public] Actions already taken: - [Date] [Action, outcome] - [Date] [Action, outcome] Patient's requested resolution: [As stated by the patient] Reason the office could not resolve: [Authority, policy, or scope reason] Public response status: [Posted / Held per Legal / Not yet posted — reason] Risk indicators (check all that apply): [ ] Clinical concern [ ] Compliance / privacy [ ] Legal / third-party [ ] Safety threat [ ] Reputational sensitivity [ ] Repeat complaint Requested next step: [What the Office Manager is asking Patient Escalations to do]
A 1–2★ review is closed when all of the following are true:
Sending the escalation email does not mean the patient matter is resolved. It means ownership has been transferred to the appropriate internal team. The Office Manager should remain available for follow-up but should not continue negotiating independently unless instructed.
| Action | Proposed target |
|---|---|
| Review the alert and complete initial risk triage | Same business day |
| Post the public response or route to the appropriate owner | Within 1 business day |
| Attempt private outreach | Same or next business day |
| Escalate urgent legal, privacy, clinical-safety, or threat-related matters | Immediately |
| Escalate unresolved routine complaints | Within 1 business day |
| Follow up on an unacknowledged internal escalation | After 1 business day |
These are proposed service targets pending SGA leadership approval — they are not existing policy. The Internal Routing timeline below covers what happens after the escalation is received by the internal team.
SGA operates on three review-response platforms. Confirm which one your practice uses before publishing — the shared preparation steps below apply to all three, and only the publish step is platform-specific.
| Platform | Coverage | When to use |
|---|---|---|
| Swell Accessed via Dental Intelligence login |
91 locations | The practice's current review-response platform, contracted through December 2026. |
| PromoRepublic Direct platform login |
157 locations launching | The practice's rolling-launch review-response platform; will be the network's platform of record as Swell is retired. |
| Manual — Google Business Profile Direct Google login |
Fallback / not-on-either | Use when the practice is not yet on Swell or PromoRepublic, or when either platform is temporarily unavailable. |
If you are unsure which platform is assigned to your practice, ask your Growth Manager or ROD before publishing.
Use this path if the practice is not on Swell or PromoRepublic, or if either platform is unavailable.
Training / access issues: If you do not have the Google account credentials for your practice's Business Profile, contact your Growth Manager.
Use this path if your practice is one of the 91 SGA locations on Swell.
Training: Contact debi@swellcx.com for Swell onboarding or refresher training.
Use this path if your practice is on the PromoRepublic launch list. PromoRepublic will become the network's platform of record as Swell is retired.
Training / launch access: [Confirm PromoRepublic training contact — Decision Required]. In the interim, coordinate with your Growth Manager.
Publishing through Swell or PromoRepublic pushes the response to the connected Google Business Profile automatically. You do not need to also publish through Manual · GBP if you have already published through Swell or PromoRepublic.
These themes don't require internal escalation. Templates can be posted directly by the practice or configured for automated response on request. Respond to the experience, not the underlying clinical or billing matter. Use these when Step 2 above returns Office-level service recovery.
Theme frequency: Moderate — often paired with billing or clinical themes. Respond to the experience, not the underlying clinical/billing matter.
Sample response — staff tone:
Sample response — first impression / greeting:
SEO used: Practice name · City · "dental team" or "dental office"
Sample response:
SEO used: Practice name · City
Sample response — wait time:
Sample response — anxiety / comfort:
SEO used: Practice name · City · "dental care" · "dental office"
These templates acknowledge the review publicly within 24 hours while internal escalation is in progress. Do not post a substantive response until the appropriate team has cleared the position. Never admit fault, reference internal processes, or quote policy in a holding response.
⚠ Holding responses buy time — they are not final responses. A follow-up must be posted once the team has reviewed.
Holding response (post within 24 hrs):
Follow-up response (once Finance / RCM has reviewed):
Escalate to: Finance / RCM within 4 business hours of review receipt. Include review URL, location, and patient-facing description (no PHI).
SEO used: Practice name · City · implied service context from the review
Holding response:
Escalate to: RCM / Billing. Flag separately if the review mentions collections, legal threats, or fraud — those route to Legal, not RCM alone.
Holding response:
Follow-up response (once Clinical has reviewed — CDO or Office Manager approval required):
Escalate to: Clinical Director / Office Manager within 2 business hours. Do NOT post a substantive response until clinical leadership has reviewed. No admission of error or clinical facts in the public response — those belong in a private follow-up only.
Red flag triggers: Mentions of wrong diagnosis, unnecessary procedures, infection, or injury → elevate to Chief Dental Officer and Legal immediately.
Holding response:
Escalate to: Operations / Office Manager. Call center complaints should also be flagged to the central contact center team lead.
Holding response:
Escalate to: Growth Manager for coordination. If the complaint involves a prior unresolved clinical concern, Clinical Leadership must also be looped in.
Holding response:
Red flag: If the review alleges specific unnecessary procedures or a second opinion contradicted the diagnosis — escalate to Clinical Leadership and Legal before any response. Do not post a holding response until leadership is aware.
Google will consider removing a review only when the content violates one of its published policies. Reporting is a separate action from responding — reporting does not replace the public response, and posting a response does not prevent reporting. Both can happen in parallel.
The Office Manager makes this decision using the checklist below, drawn from Google's current prohibited and restricted content policies. A review is a candidate for reporting only if it appears to fall into one of these categories. If none clearly fits, do not report — respond and, if warranted, escalate internally.
| Google policy category | What it covers (typical examples in a dental context) |
|---|---|
| Fake engagement | The reviewer was never a patient and never visited the practice; content that misrepresents the location; rating manipulation. |
| Conflict of interest | A former or current employee, a competitor, or someone with a stake in the practice's reputation posting under the guise of a patient. |
| Off-topic | Political, social, or personal commentary unrelated to the patient's experience at the practice. |
| Personal or confidential information | The review discloses another person's identifiable data — a staff member's home address, phone number, medical detail, etc. — without consent. |
| Harassment, threats, or hate speech | Threats of harm, doxxing, unwanted sexualization, or content vilifying a protected group. |
| Offensive content · profanity · obscenity | Profane or obscene content clearly intended to offend; sexually explicit material. |
| Impersonation or misrepresentation | Content pretending to represent a specific person, group, or organization; false accounts of service quality intended to deceive. |
| Advertising & solicitation | Promotional content, external contact information, or links intended to move traffic elsewhere. |
| Restricted content | Calls-to-action for alcohol, gambling, tobacco, firearms, pharmaceuticals, adult services, or financial products. |
| Dangerous content · violence & gore · child safety · terrorist content | Rare but escalate immediately if seen. These also warrant Legal / Compliance involvement. |
| Unclear & repetitive · defacement | Meaningless posts, duplicate reviews, or content that damages the profile through pranks. |
See the full current list of prohibited and restricted content at support.google.com/business/answer/7400114. If none of these categories clearly fits, do not report the review — respond and, if warranted, escalate internally.
Whether the report is filed through Google Business Profile or the Reviews Management Tool, the internal record needs the following before the report goes in. Confidential information belongs in the internal record only — never in the public response or in unnecessary external submissions.
Use this path when you already have the Business Profile open. Source: support.google.com/business/answer/4596773.
Use this path when you need to report multiple reviews, or when the Business Profile UI is not convenient. Direct link: support.google.com/business/workflow/9945796.
Google's evaluation can take several days. Status is visible in the Reviews Management Tool. The current statuses are:
| Status | What it means |
|---|---|
| Decision pending | Google has received the report but has not yet evaluated it. |
| Report reviewed — no policy violation | Google evaluated the review and concluded it does not violate policy. The review will remain live. This status is eligible for a one-time appeal. |
| Escalated — check email for updates | The report has been escalated within Google. Watch the email inbox associated with the reporting Google account. |
Google-decision outcomes are not formally recorded. SGA does not maintain a Google-decision log at the practice level. The Office Manager may spot-check status in the Reviews Management Tool when useful, but no scheduled review or reporting cadence is expected.
The Office Manager owns the appeal. Google allows only one appeal per reported review — do not appeal reflexively. Reserve the appeal for cases with a clear, defensible policy argument that was not fully considered on the first pass.
In these cases, Legal reviews the appeal language before it is submitted — the one-time nature of the appeal makes it too costly to send without a legal review of the wording.
You can appeal up to 10 reviews in one session, but each review still receives only one appeal opportunity.
This section covers what happens inside the organization after the Office Manager hands off an escalation via the workflow above. It defines team SLAs, the theme-to-team routing matrix, and the fields required in every internal ticket. The Office Manager Workflow is the front-door process; this is the back-door.
Practice or automated system classifies theme. Holding response drafted if escalation is needed.
Acknowledge publicly. No substantive position taken. Internal routing ticket opened.
Appropriate team (Clinical / Finance / Ops / Legal) has received the flag and confirmed ownership.
Cleared by owning team. Practice drafts final response and publishes after approval.
Legal/Compliance holds all response timing. Do not post any response until Legal releases.
| Review Theme(s) | Route To | Auto-Response Eligible? | Who Approves Final Response? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Staff friendliness, atmosphere, wait time, check-in, front desk, greeting, cleanliness | No escalation needed | Yes — available on request | Practice |
| Billing accuracy, cost transparency, out-of-pocket costs, payment options | Finance / RCM | Holding response only — manual | Finance / RCM confirms position → practice posts |
| Insurance processing, insurance verification, billing support | Finance / RCM | Holding response only — manual | RCM confirms · Legal if fraud mentioned |
| Quality of care, bedside manner, treatment outcomes, pain management, provider empathy | Clinical Leadership (CDO / Office Manager) | Holding response only — manual | CDO or designated clinical lead approves language |
| Wrong diagnosis, unnecessary procedure, infection, gloves / OSHA | CDO + Legal + Compliance immediately | No response until Legal clears | Legal only |
| Availability, scheduling delays, hold time, call center, ease of contact | Operations / Office Manager | Holding response only — manual | Ops confirms position → practice posts |
| Complaint resolution, follow-up, care coordination, team coordination | Growth Manager | Holding response only — manual | Growth Manager or Office Manager clears |
| Sales pressure, upselling, unnecessary treatment | Clinical + Operations | No response until team clears | CDO or Legal (if fraud implications) |
| Collections threat, legal threat, board complaint, fraud allegation | Legal + Finance immediately | No response until Legal clears | Legal only — no exception |
Route escalations with the following information — no patient name or PHI in internal ticket:
| Field | What to Include |
|---|---|
| Location | Practice name + city |
| Platform | Google · Facebook · other |
| Review date | Date posted |
| Star rating | 1★ or 2★ (or 3★ with escalation trigger) |
| Theme(s) | Theme label from routing classification |
| Review text | Full verbatim text (public, not PHI) |
| Holding response | Paste text of response already posted (or note if none posted) |
| Red flags | Collections / Legal / OSHA / clinical integrity — call out explicitly |
| Requested action | Confirm organizational position so the practice can finalize the public response |
A review case is closed when every applicable box below is either checked or explicitly marked N/A. Not every case involves a Google report or appeal — many close after steps 1–6.
The following must be resolved before automated review response can be rolled out at scale: