Short answer: A skilled writer can organise and explain a clinic’s information, but a suitably qualified clinician should review medical claims before publication. The clinic also needs a named owner who can correct practical details when services, clinicians or hours change.
“Clinician reviewed” is not a decoration to add after a page is written. It is a responsibility: someone with the right expertise must check that the content is accurate, relevant to the clinic and safe for the audience it serves.
Our position at FJMK is that healthcare content has two jobs that should not be confused. It must help the right person understand what the clinic offers, and it must stay within what the clinic can substantiate. Search visibility is downstream of those jobs.
Give each person a distinct role
- The clinic supplies the facts: services actually provided, locations, appointment steps, fees or payment details it is willing to publish, and the person responsible for each service.
- The writer makes the facts usable: plain language, a clear answer near the top, useful headings and a route to the next step.
- The clinical reviewer checks the medicine: accuracy, boundaries, important qualifications and whether the page could mislead someone about diagnosis or treatment.
- The page owner maintains it: review dates, broken links, outdated service details and changes that require another clinical check.
One person may hold more than one role, but the checks still need to happen. A writer should not invent clinical detail to fill a gap; a clinician should not have to reverse-engineer the page’s purpose from a draft.
Make the review visible and specific
For health information, readers should be able to understand who created the page and who reviewed it, when that review happened, and which sources support important claims. Use real names and credentials only with permission and verification. If a page has no qualified reviewer, do not label it clinically reviewed.
A review date is useful only if somebody actually checked the page on that date. Do not update dates just to make a page look new.
Write for the question before the keyword
Suppose a visitor asks, “Do you offer this service at your Ikeja branch, and how do I book?” A generic page about the importance of healthcare will not answer. A useful page states what the clinic offers at that location, identifies the correct contact route, and says whether the request is confirmed or still needs a call back.
For medical education, keep the boundary equally clear: explain what the clinic can responsibly explain, point to reliable sources, and tell readers how to contact a qualified professional for personal advice. Do not turn a marketing page into a substitute consultation.
Where AI tools can help, and where they stop
AI can help organise interview notes, propose a plain-language structure or flag jargon for review. It cannot supply the clinic’s real service facts, approve a clinical claim or take responsibility for errors. A polished paragraph is not evidence that its statements are correct.
Google’s people-first guidance asks whether content shows effort, originality and accuracy, with especially strong expectations for health topics. It also warns against publishing scaled summaries that add little value. For FJMK, the practical test is simple: can the clinic point to a real person and a real process behind each important claim?
Further reading: Google’s guidance on helpful, reliable, people-first content.
A publication check that catches the common failures
- Can the reader identify the page’s author or responsible organisation?
- Is the medical content reviewed by the right clinician?
- Are service, location and booking facts confirmed by the clinic?
- Does the page answer its title directly?
- Is there a clear owner and reason to review it again?
If any answer is no, the page is not ready just because it is grammatically finished.