MNA internal process

Review handling playbook

What Brandrevieww.org appears to offer, what MNA can do itself, and how to handle negative reviews consistently.

Recommendation

Use an internal process first.

The vendor appears to identify reviews and submit ordinary platform reports or appeals. The platform still decides whether a review is removed. We can manage the same work with better visibility and control.

Do not rely onA 24-hour promise, guaranteed removal, special access, or removal of legitimate criticism.

1owner for the review list

7initial review categories

1human approval before an appeal

0account passwords shared

What the vendor is probably doing

The email says reviews can be removed “in as little as 24 hours” and proposes payment after handling. That sounds like a submission-and-appeal service, not a special removal channel.

1. FindLocate low-rated reviews and save the exact text, URL, date, and screenshot.

2. CheckDecide whether the review breaks a specific platform rule.

3. ApproveHave an MNA owner approve the evidence and wording.

4. SubmitUse the platform’s own reporting or business-support route.

5. TrackRecord the platform’s decision and the next action.

Our internal process

Start with a spreadsheet or small database. The important part is keeping the evidence together and having one person approve each appeal.

Review register fields

IdentityPlatform, business profile, direct review URL, capture date.

ReviewRating, date, display name, exact text, screenshot/export.

ContextFacility, service line, employee or interaction reference if known.

ClassificationPolicy category, evidence strength, legitimate/unclear status.

ActionResponse owner, appeal owner, submission date, platform ticket.

OutcomePlatform decision, removal confirmed, response published, next review date.

Policy decision tree

Is there a specific platform-rule concern? If no, treat it as criticism to address, not remove.
Can MNA preserve concrete evidence? If no, mark “insufficient evidence.”
Would the appeal expose nurse, candidate, facility, client, or account information? If yes, stop and route through the appropriate internal review.
Has a human approved the exact category and wording? If no, do not submit.
Did the platform decide? Record the result without overstating what caused it.

Initial classification matrix

Category	Internal handling	Appeal posture
Impersonation / no genuine interaction	Collect account and interaction evidence; avoid unsupported accusation.	Reviewable
Spam / duplicate / coordinated manipulation	Document matching text, timing, profiles, or repetition.	Reviewable
Threats, harassment, hate, personal data	Preserve evidence and escalate internally; redact personal data from reports.	Reviewable
Demonstrably fabricated factual claim	Separate provable factual error from opinion or dissatisfaction.	Case-specific
Legitimate negative experience	Respond calmly, investigate operationally, and address the root issue.	Do not suppress
Insufficient evidence	Keep in queue; do not escalate simply because it is damaging.	Hold

What to protect

Public replies should not reveal private information about nurses, candidates, facilities, clients, assignments, or internal accounts.

Safe public response pattern

Use this structureAcknowledge the concern → avoid confirming a specific nurse, candidate, facility, or client relationship → invite an offline conversation → offer a general contact route.

Example: “We’re sorry to hear about your concern. We respect the privacy of our nurses, candidates, facilities, and clients, so we cannot discuss individual matters in a public forum. Please contact our office directly so the appropriate team can review the concern.”

Never include

Stop before publishingNurse or candidate confirmation, assignment dates, facility or client names not already public, contact details, screenshots containing private information, or claims that a reviewer is lying without evidence.

Vendor and process controls

Do not provide account passwords or unrestricted profile access.
Use delegated access only if formally approved and least-privilege.
Require a written scope, deliverables, fee trigger, and evidence of platform decisions.

Do not authorize mass reporting, purchased accounts, review bombing, or fabricated legal claims.
Keep raw captures internal; redact before wider sharing.
Keep outreach, candidate communications, review requests, and appeal submissions as separate workflows.

Simple way to track this

Use automation for reminders and organization—not for deciding which criticism should disappear.

Version 1 · human-in-the-loop

review capture (manual screenshot/export) → review register (spreadsheet or SQLite) → policy category + evidence links → owner approval queue → platform-native submission checklist → decision / response tracking → monthly outcome report

Safe automation later

Deduplicate review records.
Remind owners about unresolved cases.
Generate evidence packets and redacted reports.
Draft—not publish—response language.
Show removal outcomes with timestamps.

Keep the gateAutomation must not decide that criticism is illegitimate, submit mass reports, or publish staffing-related responses without review.

Success measures

Track	What it tells us	Do not claim
Reviews assessed	Queue coverage and response time.	That assessment equals removal.
Policy-supported appeals	Whether submissions have a defensible basis.	That an appeal will succeed.
Platform decisions	Actual confirmed outcomes.	That MNA or a vendor caused the decision without evidence.
Responses and operational fixes	Whether public reputation work connects to service improvement.	That review volume alone proves reputation quality.

Start here

Use this as the first internal operating pass.

Assign one MNA owner for the register and one backup.
Capture every current low-rated review before responding.
Classify each review using the matrix above.
Route possible nurse, candidate, facility, client, or account-data issues to the appropriate internal owner.
Draft a platform-native appeal only for a specific, evidenced violation.
Draft a privacy-safe response for legitimate criticism.
Record platform decisions and keep before/after evidence.
Invite honest feedback through a neutral process after completed interactions; never gate by sentiment.

Vendor decisionDo not engage Brandrevieww.org on the current evidence. The site was unavailable by DNS during review, and the supplied material does not establish capability, platform authorization, or a special removal channel.