Why National Clinical Psychology Service doesn’t have Google reviews
Why we don’t ask for Google reviews
19 February 2026
Dr Jurai Darongkamas
People sometimes ask why you won’t see Google reviews associated with National Clinical Psychology Service, and why I do not use named client testimonials in the way many businesses do.
The reason is straightforward: we do not request public reviews from clients.
This is a deliberate decision, grounded in confidentiality, professional boundaries, and the ethics of psychological therapy.
At the same time, I recognise that prospective clients often want reassurance about what it is like to use the National Clinical Psychology Service referral pathway and then go on to receive psychological support from one of the independent clinicians within the network. That is why we include anonymised feedback on this website, where people have explicitly agreed that the feedback they provide (for example, via our feedback form) can be used anonymously.
How our service model works
National Clinical Psychology Service is a national clinical psychology referral and matching service. We aim to help people access appropriately skilled psychological support from HCPC-registered Clinical Psychologists, based on their needs, preferences, and goals.
Clinicians within the network are independent clinicians. Feedback is used for service improvement and governance, including how we refine our referral pathway and quality assurance processes.
Public reviews can also create distortions in perceived quality. Psychological therapy is relational and context-dependent; what is the right fit for one person may not be the right fit for another, even with the same clinician. Our anonymised testimonials reflect each person’s experience and are not presented as a definitive measure of “quality”.
Why star-ratings don’t translate well onto therapy
Psychological therapy is not the same as buying a product or booking a hotel. When it’s a standard product that can be bought from different stores, I (rightly or wrongly) put great faith in what others have written in reviews. It gives me ideas for what to think about (for example, whether the material is too flimsy for a particular use).
Therapy is different. People often reach out when they are feeling vulnerable, overwhelmed, or unsure. In that context, asking for public reviews is not clinically appropriate in many therapeutic situations. While therapy is a paid-for service, the work remains personal and sensitive, and confidentiality must remain central.
Therapy is also inherently relational. One person’s experience of therapy with a therapist will inevitably be different from another person’s experience, even with the same therapist, because we are unique human beings. You, as the client, bring your life experience, your uniqueness, and your way of relating—and so does the therapist (alongside doctorate-level clinical psychology knowledge, skills, and experience).
A five-star scale also collapses a complex clinical process into a single number, which can be misleading for both clients and clinicians.
Why we prioritise privacy over public visibility
Google reviews are public, searchable, and persistent—so even a well-meant comment can unintentionally disclose sensitive information. Your name or identifying details can also remain online for years.
Confidentiality is of the utmost importance in psychological practice. I also want to reduce the risk that someone later regrets making a public disclosure about a sensitive, yet important, period in their life. Some people might argue that’s not in my remit. I choose to reduce potential future privacy risk.
A review can unintentionally disclose that a person has used psychological therapy, which may be sensitive for personal, family, cultural, or work reasons.
Professional guidance across psychological professions repeatedly emphasises the importance of protecting confidentiality and being cautious about online activity that could identify a client directly or indirectly.
How we use feedback instead
We invite private feedback to strengthen quality and governance, and—with explicit consent—we may publish fully anonymised excerpts so prospective clients can understand how our referral pathway feels in practice.
In practical terms:
- Feedback is collected privately (for example, via a feedback form), not through public platforms.
- People are not asked to attach their name or online identity.
- I only use comments where explicit permission has been given for anonymous use.
- We remove personal details (and avoid case specifics) so excerpts cannot reasonably be linked back to an individual.
This allows prospective clients to get a sense of people’s experiences, without inviting anyone into public disclosure.
Why we don’t put clients in a position of obligation
In therapy, the clinician and client do not meet as equals. The therapist holds clinical responsibility and is often experienced as an authority figure.
Clients can arrive feeling uncertain, people-pleasing, anxious about conflict, or worried about “getting it wrong”.
A request for a review—however carefully phrased—can land as an expectation, particularly for people who are already anxious about conflict, approval, or “getting it wrong”. Even subtle pressure can affect how safe it feels to be fully honest.
As a satisfied client, you may feel a wish to “give something back” by leaving a review. In therapy, that impulse can be understandable, but it is not necessary. You have already paid for the service, and the therapeutic relationship is not designed to create a sense of obligation. In many cases, the clinician’s reward is seeing your progress and growth, rather than receiving public praise.
For these reasons, we keep feedback requests focused on service improvement rather than public marketing.
Some professional guidance is explicit: no reviews/ testimonials
Different professional bodies have different rules, but some professional bodies explicitly discourage or prohibit the use of client testimonials in advertising.
For example, although clinical psychologists are regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC, rather than the UK Council for Psychotherapy), the UKCP Code of Ethics and Professional Practice prohibits including testimonials from clients in advertising—illustrating a wider ethical direction across therapy professions: protect confidentiality, avoid dual relationships, and do not exploit the therapeutic relationship for promotion.
This is one reason you will see many reputable therapists and psychologists choosing not to host public testimonials or review sections on their websites, even though it can be commercially advantageous in many sectors.
Why reviews can give a misleading picture of psychological care
Therapy outcomes are influenced by many factors, including two (or more) people’s compatibility, timing, complexity, life circumstances, and readiness for change. A single public review can simplify a nuanced process, and it may not reflect what most people experience.
There is also a practical imbalance: in fields where clinicians cannot ethically solicit reviews, the small number of people who post may be those who are especially unhappy or in high-conflict situations, which can create a distorted picture.
What we do instead: feedback that protects clients
Not asking for Google reviews does not mean we do not value feedback.
We focus on approaches that are more clinically appropriate, for example:
- confidential service feedback (that does not place clients in public)
- clinical governance: supervision, consultation, and reflective practice
- careful matching and clear boundaries
- transparent processes if something has not felt right
And, where people have consented, we may use anonymised feedback to help others understand what the service is like, without creating the risks associated with public review platforms.
If you want to recommend our service, what helps most
If you have found our service helpful and want to support others, there are alternatives that do not involve named public reviews:
- Share our website pages or blog posts with someone who may benefit.
- If you are a health professional or referrer, provide professional feedback through our channels.
- Use our confidential feedback route, so learning can translate into service improvement and anonymised feedback on the website.
FAQs
Can I leave a Google review anyway?
I cannot stop anyone leaving a review. For confidentiality reasons, we do not request or encourage public reviews, especially if identifying details are revealed.
Will you reply to a review?
Generally no. We avoid public exchanges that could imply whether someone has, or has not, used our services.
How do you use anonymised feedback on your website?
We only use anonymised feedback where someone has explicitly agreed that their comments (for example, from a feedback form) can be used anonymously. We remove or avoid identifying details so that feedback cannot reasonably be linked back to an individual.
This answers the question “Why would a clinical psychologist not have google reviews”.
How can I tell if a clinical psychology service is reputable, if there are no reviews?
Look for clear professional information such as:
- appropriate registration (e.g., HCPC for practitioner psychologists)
- clarity about training and approach/es
- transparent information about confidentiality, boundaries, and safeguarding
- whether clinicians have been employed by the NHS (who have their own recruitment and selection processes)
- a sensible process for asking questions before committing
Why doesn’t National Clinical Psychology Service have any Google reviews?
Hopefully, this blog has explained the reasons behind the decision not to ask clients for public Google reviews .
Free confidential consultation
If you are considering therapy or assessment and want to understand what would help, contact us for a free confidential consultation. We will talk through what you are looking for and help you consider the best next step.
Why National Clinical Psychology Service doesn’t have Google reviews.
We hope this clarifies why National Clinical Psychology Service doesn’t have Google reviews; why we do not ask for Google reviews while still enabling people to read anonymised feedback where permission has been given.
