Medical Review Process
A standards page describing how medical content on this site is reviewed at publication and on a recurring cadence. The page explains the review workflow — what the reviewing clinician evaluates, how frequently re-review happens, how reviewer attribution works, and how conflict-of-interest discipline is maintained. The framework treats medical review as a structural part of how the site is operated rather than as a marketing label.
Overview
The medical review process at this clinic covers the workflow steps that produce reviewed clinical content for publication. The workflow includes drafting alongside the clinical layer, structured review against the editorial standards, revision where required, publication only after the review layer is satisfied, scheduled re-review on a defined cadence, and patient-feedback-driven adjustment between scheduled reviews. The process is operational rather than aspirational — it describes how the site is actually maintained, not how a marketing page about medical review would describe it.
For medical-review-process questions this page is the explainer layer. The formal Editorial and Medical Review Policy sits in the policies section as a separate page carrying the formal commitments.
The review workflow at publication
Drafted content reaches the medical-review layer before publication. The reviewing dermatologist evaluates each clinical claim against published evidence and clinical experience, checks suitability framing and "not for" inclusions, evaluates the expectation-honesty layer for outcome variability and residual risk, confirms phototype calibration where Indian-skin context applies, and checks appropriate cross-links to related pages. Where any element falls short of the standards bar set by the editorial framework, the page is returned for revision rather than published with a flagged concern.
Iteration between draft and review is normal. The framework treats this iteration as part of producing reviewed clinical content rather than as a sign of inefficient process. Pages that need multiple review cycles before reaching the publication bar are not rushed; the process treats clinical-accuracy completion as the gating step rather than publication-date pressure.
Scheduled re-review cadence
Each published page carries a "last reviewed" date and a "next review due" date in the editorial footer. The default review cadence is annual. Selected pages are scheduled for earlier re-review when the underlying clinical area is evolving rapidly, when clinic practice has updated in ways relevant to the page, or when external published evidence has shifted in ways that materially affect the framing. The next-review-due date in the footer signals the scheduled-review milestone for each page.
Re-review at the cadence date is not a routine rubber-stamp. The reviewing clinician evaluates the same elements as at initial publication and revises where the standards layer has shifted or where the underlying evidence has developed. The framework treats annual re-review as a structural commitment rather than an optional one.
Reactive review between scheduled cycles
Beyond scheduled re-review, content is also revised reactively when triggers appear. Triggers include: new published evidence that materially changes the framing on a topic, clinic-practice updates that change what is offered or how it is calibrated, patient feedback or questions that surface gaps in the existing content, identification of any inaccuracy at routine internal checks, and material updates to relevant policy or regulatory framing. The framework treats these reactive triggers as part of how the site is maintained rather than as exceptions.
Reviewer attribution
The reviewer signature on every page documents the clinician who reviewed the content and the date of review. The signature includes the clinician\'s name, primary qualification, and registration number. This attribution layer is part of the trust framework — it documents the accountability for the clinical claims on each page rather than leaving the content anonymous. Patients can identify which clinician reviewed each page they are reading.
Reviewer attribution also supports the next layer of the framework — when a review is performed by one clinician and a subsequent review is performed by another, the historical attribution remains in the page record. The framework supports a multi-reviewer environment as the clinical team and content base scale, while keeping the per-page attribution clear for patients.
Conflict-of-interest discipline
Medical-review pages are particularly attentive to conflict-of-interest framing on treatment pages. The framework explicitly avoids "we offer X so X is recommended" framing because that conflates commercial offering with clinical recommendation. Where a treatment is described, the page covers what the modality does and does not deliver biologically, who is and is not appropriate for it, what the residual risk profile is, and what alternative pathways exist; it does not push the patient toward the procedure as the only or best option. The reviewing clinician\'s job at this layer is to push back against sales framing that has crept into the draft.
Patient feedback and content correction
Patients who notice an inaccuracy, an unclear statement, an outdated fact, or a framing concern on any page are welcome to raise it. Patient-flagged concerns trigger reactive review of the relevant page; the framework treats this as an input to the review process rather than as friction. The complaints and grievance redressal policy in the policies section covers the formal channel where any concern that warrants formal handling can be raised, and patients are entitled to use that channel as well.
What this process is not
It is not a guarantee that every page is free of error — content is created and reviewed by people, and the framework supports correction when issues are identified rather than implying perfection. It is not a substitute for the clinical conversation at the consultation — site content is medical education rather than personalised diagnosis. It is not a substitute for the formal Editorial and Medical Review Policy in the policies section. It is not a marketing claim about review depth; it is the operational standards layer behind how the site is maintained.
How the review process integrates with site-wide standards
The medical-review process does not operate in isolation; it integrates with the broader site-wide standards layer. Review decisions on individual pages are calibrated against the editorial standards, the safety standards, the treatment-suitability philosophy, and the clinical-approach framework. A page that meets clinical-accuracy on its own claims but conflicts with the suitability philosophy is returned for revision; a page that frames a procedure consistently with the device-principles framing on the technology hub is reinforced rather than questioned. The integration is part of how the review layer keeps the site coherent across topics rather than treating each page in isolation.
Cross-reference to the formal policy
This page describes the medical-review process at the standards level. The formal Editorial and Medical Review Policy in the policies section is the document with the formal commitments. The two layers sit alongside each other: this page describes how the process operates and the policy page documents the formal commitments. Both are patient-facing transparency rather than internal-only material.
Related internal links
Frequently asked questions
Who reviews medical content on this site?
Site clinical content is reviewed by a qualified dermatologist with documented credentials. The reviewer signature on every page identifies the clinician and the date of review. The clinical-review layer is integrated into the publication workflow rather than performed as a one-time pass.
What does "review" actually mean here?
Review means the dermatologist reads the page, evaluates each clinical claim against published evidence and clinical experience, checks suitability framing and "not for" lists, evaluates expectation honesty for the relevant outcome ranges, confirms Indian-skin phototype calibration where applicable, and confirms appropriate cross-links to related pages. Where any element falls short of the standards bar, the page is revised before publication or before the next scheduled review concludes.
How frequently are pages re-reviewed?
Each page carries a "last reviewed" date and a "next review due" date in the editorial footer. The default review cadence is annual; selected pages are reviewed earlier when relevant evidence shifts, when clinic practice updates, or when patient feedback surfaces gaps. The cadence is calibrated to the page rather than fixed across all pages.
Are SEO-only writers used for medical content?
No. The framework does not endorse external SEO-only writers producing clinical content without dermatology review of every clinical claim. Where editorial assistance is involved in drafting, the clinical-review layer is non-negotiable — drafts do not bypass review on the way to publication.
How is conflict of interest handled?
The reviewing clinician's clinical-judgement layer is the primary safeguard against conflict-of-interest framing on individual treatment pages. Where a treatment page might naturally tend toward sales framing, the review layer pushes back toward suitability and expectation honesty. The framework explicitly avoids "we offer X so X is recommended" framing because that framing is a sales conflict rather than a clinical recommendation.
Where can I see the formal policy?
The formal Editorial and Medical Review Policy sits in the policies section as a separate page carrying the formal commitments. This page is the explainer layer that describes how the review process is organised; the policy page carries the formal text. Patients are entitled to read both.
Last reviewed: April 2026 · Next review due: April 2027 · Reviewed by: Dr Chetna Ghura, MBBS MD Dermatology, DMC 2851.