How to Get Patient Reviews as a Therapist in Spain (Without Breaking Ethics or LOPD)

Reviews are the most visible trust signal in local search. When a prospective patient searches "psicólogo en Madrid" and sees two similar-looking practices, the one with 34 recent, substantive reviews will almost always win the click. And yet most therapy practices in Spain have fewer than ten Google reviews — not because their patients are dissatisfied, but because asking felt ethically complicated or procedurally unclear.

This guide untangles that. It covers what the LOPD actually says about reviews in healthcare, what you can and cannot do ethically as a psychologist, and how to build a simple, sustainable review system that generates real social proof without crossing any lines.

Why Reviews Matter More Than Most Therapists Realize

Google's local ranking algorithm weighs review quantity, review recency, and review quality as part of its "prominence" signal — one of the three core factors determining who appears in the Local Pack. A practice with a consistent flow of recent reviews will systematically outrank a practice with better credentials but no reviews, all else being equal.

Beyond rankings, reviews function as conversion infrastructure. A patient who finds your practice through Google Maps will read your reviews before they click your website or pick up the phone. Practices with no reviews — or reviews that are months old — create doubt at precisely the moment when the patient is making a decision. That doubt is expensive.

What the LOPD Actually Says About Reviews

Spain's Ley Orgánica de Protección de Datos (LOPD-GDD, 2018) and the EU's GDPR govern how personal data can be processed. The relevant concern for therapists is this: publishing or referencing any information that could identify a person as a patient — even indirectly — constitutes processing of health data, which is classified as sensitive data requiring explicit consent.

This means you cannot write a response to a review that confirms the reviewer was your patient. You cannot reference the nature of their treatment. You cannot acknowledge anything about the therapeutic relationship. What a patient chooses to write about their own experience is their business — but your response must treat them as you would any member of the public.

Importantly, the LOPD does not prohibit asking for reviews. It does not prohibit having a review link on your website. It does not prohibit responding to reviews. The constraint is narrow and specific: do not disclose health data in your responses, and do not make it possible to infer someone's patient status from your words.

The Ethical Dimension: Beyond LOPD

Legal compliance is the floor, not the ceiling. As a psychologist, you also operate under the deontological guidelines of your Colegio Oficial, which emphasize the protection of patient dignity, the avoidance of conflicts of interest, and the preservation of the therapeutic relationship's integrity.

Incentivizing reviews — offering discounts, gifts, or any benefit in exchange for a Google review — is both a violation of Google's terms of service and ethically inappropriate in a healthcare context. It introduces a transactional element into a relationship that must remain free of commercial pressure.

Soliciting reviews during active treatment is also inadvisable. The power dynamics of the therapeutic relationship mean that a patient mid-treatment may feel subtle pressure to comply. The appropriate moment is at or after the natural conclusion of a course of treatment — when the patient can evaluate the process with perspective and without feeling that their care depends on their response.

Building a Review System That Works

Step 1: Get your review link

Log into your Google Business Profile dashboard. Under "Get more reviews," Google provides a shortened link that takes patients directly to the review form. Copy this link. You will use it in every review request touchpoint.

Step 2: Identify the right moment

The best moment to request a review is at the close of a successfully completed treatment course — not at the first session, not during intensive phases, and not when a patient is in distress. For patients who are ending therapy because they have achieved their goals, mentioning that a review would help other people find support is natural and appropriate.

A simple verbal mention works well: "If you found the process useful and feel comfortable doing so, a review on Google genuinely helps other people who are looking for support find practices like this one." No pressure. No expectation. And explicitly optional.

Step 3: A follow-up message (optional)

If your practice sends a session summary or discharge email, you can include your review link there with a brief, neutral note. Something like: "If you'd like to share your experience, we've included a link to our Google profile below. There is no obligation — we simply mention it because it helps others find us." Keep it a single line at the end of an otherwise substantive email. It should not be the primary purpose of the message.

Step 4: Responding to reviews

Respond to every review — positive and negative — within a few days. For positive reviews, a warm, brief thank-you is appropriate. Do not reference any clinical details, treatment approaches, or anything that confirms the reviewer attended your practice in a therapeutic capacity. "Thank you for sharing your experience — it means a great deal" is sufficient.

For negative reviews, the same principle applies with added care. Never confirm the person was a patient. Never dispute clinical decisions in a public forum. Acknowledge that you take all feedback seriously and invite them to contact you directly. Something like: "Thank you for your feedback. We take all experiences seriously and would welcome the opportunity to discuss this directly. Please feel free to reach out to us." This protects you legally and demonstrates professionalism to everyone else reading.

What Not to Do

Do not create a script that feels formulaic or pressuring. Patients notice when they are being worked through a process, and it undermines the authenticity of the review they might have otherwise left voluntarily.

Do not ask for reviews on Doctoralia and Google simultaneously in the same message. It looks like review harvesting and fragments the social proof across platforms. Focus on Google first — it has the highest SEO value and the widest visibility.

Do not respond to reviews with anything that could be read as medical advice, clinical assessment, or confirmation of treatment. Even seemingly innocuous phrases like "we're glad your anxiety has improved" constitute a disclosure of health data.

Do not import reviews from other platforms to your Google profile or use third-party services that aggregate reviews in ways that obscure their origin. Google penalizes review manipulation.

Realistic Expectations

A practice asking for reviews consistently — once per completed treatment, using the approach above — can realistically accumulate eight to fifteen genuine reviews per year in a moderately busy practice. That is enough to move from no reviews to a credible review base within twelve to eighteen months, and enough to sustain a recency signal that Google's algorithm responds to.

Quality matters more than volume. A practice with twelve detailed, recent reviews will outperform one with forty generic reviews in conversion rate. Detailed reviews — where patients describe specific aspects of the approach, the environment, or the outcomes they experienced — signal authenticity to both Google and prospective patients.

A Note on Doctoralia Reviews

Doctoralia has its own review system, and reviews there carry both citation value (as a high-authority domain) and direct conversion value within the Doctoralia platform. The same ethical principles apply: no incentivization, no requests during active treatment, and no responses that disclose patient status or clinical details. Doctoralia reviews are verified differently from Google reviews — patients must have had an appointment logged in the system — which adds a layer of credibility that Google reviews lack.

Building a modest presence on both platforms over time is worthwhile. But if you are starting from zero, prioritize Google first. The SEO impact is more direct and the reach is broader.