Employer reviews in care: responding to criticism calmly

Which topics come up in the reviews of a particular care service is known only to those who read their own profile. Two topics, however, merit a prepared reply in every service, because nurses weigh them particularly heavily. In the nationwide survey "Ich pflege wieder, wenn …" by the Arbeitnehmerkammer Bremen, the Institut Arbeit und Technik and the Arbeitskammer des Saarlandes, 89.1 percent (Arbeitnehmerkammer Bremen 2022) of the nurses surveyed who had left the profession or worked part-time and rated this item considered binding rosters as important or very important. Not having to step in during time off was important or very important to 81.5 percent (Arbeitnehmerkammer Bremen 2022).

The same study shows a similar picture for onboarding: for a return to work, 84 percent (Arbeitnehmerkammer Bremen 2022) of nurses who had left the profession consider structured onboarding by a manager or practice instructor particularly important. The survey ran online from 16 August to 25 October 2021 (Arbeitnehmerkammer Bremen 2022). Because participation was voluntary, it is not representative. It is still useful as an indication of what nurses pay attention to: criticism of short-notice rosters or of onboarding that was too brief touches conditions that nurses themselves rank highly.

For the reply, this leads to something uncomfortable. A review about rosters cannot be answered with a friendly sentence about team culture. Anyone reading along is looking for a statement about rosters. If there is none, the reply looks like evasion, and it does so for every later reader, not only for the person who wrote the review. How the roster becomes a verifiable argument on the careers page is described in the article Reliable rosters: the argument for the careers page.

Prepare a short current status for each of the following topics. It describes what applies in your service today and is updated as soon as something changes:

Positive reviews deserve a short reply that does not sound like a template. One sentence that responds to the content is enough: someone who praises the onboarding gets thanks that mention the practice instruction. Copied thank-you phrases under every review read to applicants like a chore. And here, too: no name, no ward, no round.

A fixed rhythm is practical. One person in the service checks the profiles weekly and drafts the reply, a second reads it before it goes online. Reply promptly, but not in the first moment of annoyance: a day’s distance turns a retort into a reply. That keeps the tone steady, even when a criticism is harsh or unfair.

Faced with an unfair review, it is tempting to have it removed. The hurdle is high, and that is intentional. Everyone has the right freely to express and disseminate their opinions in speech, writing and pictures (Article 5(1) of the Basic Law). "Roster planning is chaotic" is a value judgement, even if it is exaggerated. Untrue statements of fact are a different matter, for example "salaries were not paid for months" when every payment was made on time, as are insults. Whether a statement is an opinion or a fact in the individual case is ultimately decided by the courts. If in doubt, have it assessed by a lawyer before you act.

Since 17 February 2024 (Article 93 DSA), the EU Digital Services Act has applied in full. It obliges hosting services, and therefore review portals, to put in place a mechanism for reporting content that someone considers illegal (Article 16(1) DSA). They decide on such notices in a timely, diligent, non-arbitrary and objective manner (Article 16(6) DSA). Against the decision of an online platform that is not a micro or small enterprise (Article 19 DSA), an internal complaint-handling system is available for a period of at least six months (Article 20(1) DSA). A notice that only says "this is unfair" will not get far: it should explain why the content is illegal and state exactly where it is (Article 16(2) DSA).

There is a separate lever if the service disputes that the reviewer ever worked there or applied. For a hotel review portal, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the complaint that a review was not based on any contact as a guest is, in principle, sufficient to trigger the portal’s duty to check (BGH, judgment of 9 August 2022, VI ZR 1244/20). The Hanseatic Higher Regional Court of Hamburg applied these principles to an employer review portal in summary proceedings: if the portal does not identify the reviewer clearly enough for the employer to check the contact, the employer can demand removal (OLG Hamburg, order of 8 February 2024, 7 W 11/24).

The Federal Court of Justice draws the limit at the same time: if the reviewer’s identity is readily apparent from the review, the reviewed party has to give more detailed reasons for its complaint; otherwise, the limit of abuse of rights applies. Anyone who disputes every critical review across the board, even though the authors were recognisably employees, risks precisely that accusation. Genuine criticism from genuine employees stays. It can be answered, not litigated away.

Data protection claims under the GDPR protect natural persons, not the care service as a company. If a review names the nursing manager or a colleague, however, that person can assert their own rights against the portal. That is their decision, not the employer’s.

Without clear responsibility, reviews lie unnoticed until someone stumbles across them by chance. A lean process with six steps is enough even for a small home care service:

The fifth step decides whether the replies remain credible over time. A review is feedback from someone who knows the service from the inside. Anyone who only answers it without evaluating it will end up writing the same reply over and over. Feedback from clients and relatives needs a route of its own, such as a feedback form on the website that takes complaints separately from applications and review portals.

For applicants who still want to get in touch after reading the reviews, the next step has to be short. A quick application without a cover letter and a telephone number for the nursing manager on the careers page pick up the thread of the reply: the contact route you offer in the reply must actually work there. How long application documents may be kept afterwards is covered in the article Deleting applicant data: retention periods for the careers page.

In the end, the reply to an employer review is a small piece of careers page that sits on someone else’s platform. In a few sentences it shows how a service deals with criticism, whether it gets specific and whether it protects the people it talks about. A service that keeps to these three things in every reply can turn a three-star review into a reason to apply anyway.