Expand a criterion to read its rationale, inspection method, decision rules and references. The decision rules are our own operating criteria; the referenced documents do not approve or endorse this checklist.
36 items
Practice information
We check how names, branches, clinicians, and official channels relate to one another.
Primary name
Whether the official practice name and branch label match across channels
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- A clear institution and branch name helps distinguish organisations with similar names.
- How to inspect
- Compare the name and branch in current official information with the website and linked maps and accounts, and record the review date.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: wording matches the evidence; Needs improvement: a naming error or branch mix-up is established. Needs verification: evidence of the current name is insufficient; Not applicable: institution identification is outside the review scope.
References
Link to this criterionPractice information
Whether structured data matches the practice information visible on the page
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Structured data that differs from the page can communicate conflicting institution details.
- How to inspect
- Read the institution markup, such as JSON-LD, and compare its name, address, contact details and URL with the information on the same page.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: the markup in use matches the page; Needs improvement: a mismatch or false association is established. Needs verification: the code or current information cannot be inspected; Not applicable: no institution structured data is used.
References
Link to this criterionPast information
Whether former names, closed branches, and previous affiliations are distinguished from current information
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Separating former names, closures and past affiliations from current information is an operational criterion for reducing confusion.
- How to inspect
- Find dated change notices, compare current profiles with history pages and older posts, and check whether historical details show their period and current status.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: the distinction between past and present matches the evidence; Needs improvement: a past status is presented as current. Needs verification: the change date or current status lacks evidence; Not applicable: no relevant change or historical information is present, as verified.
References
Link to this criterionAlternative names
Whether commonly used abbreviations refer to the same practice
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Linking an abbreviation to the same institution is a practical consistency criterion; it does not require inventing an abbreviation.
- How to inspect
- Identify abbreviations actually in use alongside the official name, and compare any alternateName value with them.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: the abbreviation's association is verified; Needs improvement: it is ambiguous with another institution or lacks a basis for use. Needs verification: evidence of its use has not been found; Not applicable: no abbreviation is used.
References
Link to this criterionOfficial channels
Whether official accounts and map listings link to the correct practice
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Accurate account and map links reduce the risk of sending visitors to a different institution.
- How to inspect
- Open each listed link, compare the institution name, branch and address, and retain public evidence supporting its official status.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: the destination and evidence of its official connection match; Needs improvement: a wrong account, map or broken link is established. Needs verification: the account's official status is unclear; Not applicable: no external official-channel links are provided.
References
Link to this criterionQuestions and answers
We check whether readers can find the answers they need and understand their limitations.
Patient questions
Whether the content addresses questions patients actually have before treatment
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Choosing content around the questions patients need answered is an audience-focused editorial criterion.
- How to inspect
- Compare the article's questions with public general questions or supplied material stripped of personal data, and check for a clear audience and next verification step.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: a specific reader question and next verification step are addressed; Needs improvement: promotion replaces an answer. Needs verification: there is no basis to assess the question or intended audience; Not applicable: the document is not intended to answer a question.
References
Link to this criterionCore answer
Whether the beginning of the text addresses the main point of the question
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Placing the main answer and important conditions near the beginning is an editorial convenience, not a search-ranking requirement.
- How to inspect
- Read the title and opening together and check whether the main answer, applicable conditions and matters requiring individual verification are identifiable.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: the opening answers the question and states its conditions; Needs improvement: the answer is buried or presented without necessary qualifications. Needs verification: the body cannot be reviewed; Not applicable: the page is a list or index rather than an explanatory answer.
References
Link to this criterionMatching Q&A content
Whether any Q&A data matches the questions and answers shown on the page
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Question-and-answer markup in use should match the visible answers. This check concerns content consistency and does not promise FAQ search visibility.
- How to inspect
- Compare every marked-up question and answer with its visible counterpart, including answers revealed by expanding a section.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: all marked-up questions and answers match the page; Needs improvement: hidden, conflicting or removed content remains in the markup. Needs verification: the markup or page cannot be inspected; Not applicable: no question-and-answer structured data is used.
References
- General structured data guidelines — Google Search Central
- Latest Google Search documentation updates — Google Search Central
Content organization
Whether headings and explanations are organized by question
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Distinct questions and headings help readers find information and understand the document structure.
- How to inspect
- Check whether each heading describes the following section and whether HTML heading levels represent the relationships between sections.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: headings, content and levels have clear relationships; Needs improvement: repeated headings or incorrect levels obscure the structure. Needs verification: the document structure cannot be inspected; Not applicable: a brief single notice needs no subdivisions.
References
Link to this criterionText information
Whether essential information is available beyond images alone
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Providing essential information as real text supports resizing, copying and assistive reading.
- How to inspect
- Check whether hours, location, contact details and answers are readable outside images, and whether essential image text has an equivalent text alternative.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: all essential information is available as text; Needs improvement: information is confined to images without an equivalent alternative. Needs verification: images or their text alternatives cannot be inspected; Not applicable: there is no informative content to review.
References
Link to this criterionSearch access
We check the conditions that allow search services to discover and read public pages.
Sitemap
Whether the sitemap includes the canonical URLs intended for indexing
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- A sitemap communicates preferred URLs to search services; it does not guarantee crawling or indexing.
- How to inspect
- Compare the sitemap with the preferred URLs intended for indexing, and check for private, duplicate or removed addresses.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: intended preferred URLs are accurately included; Needs improvement: omissions or incorrect URLs are established. Needs verification: the intended list or sitemap cannot be inspected; Not applicable: the reason for not using a sitemap and an alternative discovery route are verified.
References
Link to this criterionDiscovery paths
Whether robots.txt points to the correct sitemap
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- A Sitemap entry in robots.txt is one of several ways to make a sitemap discoverable, not a mandatory method.
- How to inspect
- Inspect the absolute URL on each Sitemap line in the primary host's robots.txt and check that it leads to the intended sitemap or sitemap index.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: the Sitemap address is correct; Needs improvement: a declared address is wrong or unavailable. Needs verification: robots.txt or the target file cannot be inspected; Not applicable: another submission method, such as Search Console, is evidenced.
References
Link to this criterionRendering resources
Whether the CSS and JavaScript needed to display the content are accessible
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Blocked resources needed to display the body can prevent search services from reading the content properly.
- How to inspect
- Identify CSS and JavaScript required for the body, then inspect robots.txt, resource responses and the rendered content together.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: access to required resources and body rendering are verified; Needs improvement: blocking or resource errors omit content. Needs verification: access or rendering evidence is missing; Not applicable: the body is verified not to depend on those external resources.
References
Link to this criterionCrawler policy
Whether policies distinguish search crawlers from training crawlers
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Separating search crawling from other AI-use controls is a practical policy criterion. Google-Extended settings do not determine Google Search inclusion or ranking.
- How to inspect
- Record access intentions by purpose, such as search or training, and compare actual rules with the documented scope of controls such as Googlebot and Google-Extended.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: purposes and rules are aligned in documented evidence; Needs improvement: tokens or blocking rules conflict with the intention. Needs verification: the policy or rule scope is unclear; Not applicable: public-web crawling policies do not apply to the reviewed material.
References
Link to this criterionNaver access
Whether Yeti crawling is unintentionally blocked
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Avoiding unintended Yeti blocks helps preserve the conditions for Naver to crawl public pages.
- How to inspect
- Review Yeti-specific and shared rules in the correct host's robots.txt and inspect their effect on public URLs intended for crawling.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: intended URLs are allowed as planned; Needs improvement: rules block pages meant to be allowed. Needs verification: the file or effective result cannot be inspected; Not applicable: a documented operating policy excludes Naver crawling.
References
Link to this criterionTreatment information
We check the accuracy of information needed for visits and consultations.
Opening hours
Whether treatment days, closures, registration deadlines, and the information date are stated
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Clear hours and closure information help visitors plan. Showing registration cut-off times and a review date is an operational criterion of this check.
- How to inspect
- Compare days, closures and registration cut-offs with current institutional information, then check the review date and any hours markup for consistency.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: hours, exceptions and review date match current evidence; Needs improvement: outdated hours or a necessary distinction is missing. Needs verification: current operating hours lack evidence; Not applicable: visit hours are outside the review scope.
References
Link to this criterionLocation
Whether address, building, floor, and other visit details are consistent
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Matching addresses, buildings and floors help visitors find the same location. Cross-checking these visit details is a practical criterion.
- How to inspect
- Compare the current official address with page text, map links and any address markup, checking building and floor details where needed.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: the address and necessary location details match; Needs improvement: an old address, wrong branch or incorrect floor is established. Needs verification: evidence of the current location is unavailable; Not applicable: visitor locations are outside the review scope.
References
Link to this criterionContact details
Whether the main contact details are accurate and usable on mobile
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Matching displayed and linked numbers helps users select the intended contact. Telephone-link behaviour varies by device.
- How to inspect
- Compare the current official main number with the displayed number and tel link, and verify the number in the mobile call-confirmation screen.
- Decision rules
- Confirmed: the verified number, display and mobile hand-off match; Needs improvement: a typo, wrong destination or usability obstruction is established. Needs verification: number ownership or mobile behaviour is unverified; Not applicable: telephone contact is outside the review scope.
References
Link to this criterionFee information
Whether relevant cost information states the items, scope, and reference date
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- This is our operating rule for making cost items, inclusions and reference dates understandable; it does not determine legal disclosure duties or individual charges.
- How to inspect
- Compare the page with current cost information verified by the hospital’s designated contact, recording checks of inclusions, separate charges and effective dates.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if the records and displayed scope agree; Needs improvement if an omission or discrepancy is found. Needs verification if verified hospital records are unavailable; Not applicable if the scope record shows no cost information to review.
This is an internal operating criterion of Entity Clinic.
Link to this criterionAdvertising review
Whether review requirements and necessary disclosures have been checked separately
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- This is our operating rule for tracing the reviewer, publication version and review scope; it does not determine whether medical advertising is lawful.
- How to inspect
- Request the hospital contact’s record of reviewing screening applicability and required notices, then compare the reviewer, date, medium and unresolved issues with the current publication.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if the current version matches a scoped review with no unresolved issues; Needs improvement if the publication differs from the record or requested changes remain. Needs verification if the record or review scope is unclear; Not applicable if the scope record contains no publication requiring this review.
This is an internal operating criterion of Entity Clinic.
Link to this criterionDocument structure
Headings and body text explain what the document covers.
Main heading
Whether a clear main heading identifies the page's topic
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- A descriptive main heading helps readers identify the page’s subject and understand its structure.
- How to inspect
- Read the visible main heading and HTML heading structure, checking whether the heading accurately describes the body’s subject.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if a clear main heading matches the body; Needs improvement if the heading is missing or competing main headings describe different subjects. Needs verification if the page or heading structure cannot be inspected; Not applicable if the reviewed asset is not an HTML page.
References
Link to this criterionContent availability
Whether essential content can be reliably read and crawled
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Visible content and retrievable page content can differ, so the rendered document also needs checking.
- How to inspect
- Compare the refreshed page, response HTML and rendered document, recording missing core content or access errors affecting required resources.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if the body is readable after required rendering and resource access is verified; Needs improvement if missing content or blocked resources are reproduced. Needs verification if rendering or access results are unavailable; Not applicable if there are no webpages in scope.
References
Link to this criterionPublic information
Whether public treatment information is unnecessarily placed behind a login
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Clinical information intended for public access may be unreadable to visitors and search crawlers if it requires login.
- How to inspect
- Obtain the recorded public/private scope, then open public information URLs in a signed-out window and check that the body is available without authentication.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if visitors can read the content designated public; Needs improvement if an unintended login blocks public information. Needs verification if the scope or signed-out result is unavailable; Not applicable if the scope record contains no public clinical information.
References
Link to this criterionLinks and URLs
We help people and search services find the next piece of information.
Link format
Whether destinations are provided as working hyperlinks
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- HTML links with real destinations let readers open addresses and help search services discover connections.
- How to inspect
- Inspect navigation elements for an a element with a valid href, then copy and open the destination directly.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if navigation links have href values pointing to real destinations; Needs improvement if navigation uses only script actions without destination URLs. Needs verification if link markup or destinations cannot be checked; Not applicable if there is no address-navigation function in scope.
References
Link to this criterionStable URLs
Whether URLs are independent of sessions or temporary values
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- A session-dependent URL may not provide the same content when shared or revisited.
- How to inspect
- Reopen public page URLs in a fresh signed-out window and session, checking whether access depends on session IDs or expiring values.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if the same public content opens in a fresh session; Needs improvement if the URL fails after session closure or value expiry. Needs verification if revisit results or URL-generation rules are unknown; Not applicable if no shareable public web address is in scope.
References
Link to this criterionSecure connections
Whether links and resources use HTTPS
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- HTTP resources within an HTTPS page weaken transport protection and may be blocked by browsers.
- How to inspect
- Inspect addresses, certificates and resource requests in developer tools, checking HTTPS for final web-link destinations, images and scripts.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if web destinations and resources use HTTPS without certificate or mixed-content errors; Needs improvement if HTTP transport or related errors are found. Needs verification if actual connections or resource requests cannot be checked; Not applicable if there are no web connections in scope.
References
Link to this criterionLink status
Whether internal links open the correct pages without errors
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Checking both the response and destination content helps identify links that send readers to the wrong information.
- How to inspect
- Open internal links and record the response status, final redirected URL and page title, comparing them with the link’s promised content.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if the reviewed links return successful responses and intended content; Needs improvement if errors, redirect loops or wrong destinations are reproduced. Needs verification if the access-failure cause or inspection results are unavailable; Not applicable if there are no internal links in scope.
References
Link to this criterionUsability
We consider small screens and a range of usage environments.
Indexing settings
Whether public access and noindex settings match the intended scope
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Misconfigured noindex can exclude intended public pages, or a crawler may be unable to read an intended exclusion.
- How to inspect
- Compare each page’s indexing intent with robots meta and X-Robots-Tag, checking whether robots.txt blocks the crawler that must read noindex.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if settings match intent and necessary crawler access is verified; Needs improvement if settings conflict with intent or access to read noindex is blocked. Needs verification if indexing intent, headers or access records are unavailable; Not applicable if there are no web-served addresses in scope.
References
Link to this criterionMobile
Whether content and features remain usable on small screens
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Clipped text or overlapping controls on small screens make information and functions harder to use.
- How to inspect
- Check text, menus and contact functions at 320 CSS pixels and on a phone, assessing tables or maps needing horizontal scrolling separately from surrounding text.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if ordinary text is not clipped and core functions can be operated; Needs improvement if clipping, overlap or interaction failures are reproduced. Needs verification if small-screen inspection records are unavailable; Not applicable if there is no visual web interface in scope.
References
- W3C WAI — Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.10: Reflow
- W3C WAI — Understanding Success Criterion 2.5.8: Target Size (Minimum)
Image descriptions
Whether informative images have suitable alternative text
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Text alternatives convey an image’s information or function when the image cannot be seen.
- How to inspect
- Classify images as informative, functional or decorative, then inspect alt text, surrounding explanations and body-text equivalents for complex charts.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if alternatives match image roles and decorative images are excluded appropriately, such as with empty alt; Needs improvement if alternatives are missing or misrepresent meaning or function. Needs verification if image roles or alternatives cannot be verified; Not applicable if there are no images in scope.
References
Link to this criterionMissing pages
Whether missing URLs return a 404 status and provide a way to continue
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- A nonexistent address needs an actual 404 response and understandable guidance so users can recognise the error and navigate onward.
- How to inspect
- Open an arbitrary nonexistent path directly, check its HTTP status, and test the error page’s home or relevant-information links.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if nonexistent paths return 404 with working recovery links; Needs improvement if they return 200, redirect indiscriminately to home or have broken recovery links. Needs verification if the server response or error screen cannot be checked; Not applicable if there are no HTTP(S)-served addresses in scope.
References
Link to this criterionPage summaries
We check the titles, descriptions, and canonical URLs that distinguish pages.
Titles and descriptions
Whether the title and description explain the topic
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- The title names the document, while the meta description provides a short summary of the page.
- How to inspect
- Extract actual title and meta description values from each HTML page’s head and compare them with the visible subject and language.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if both values exist and match the page’s subject and language; Needs improvement if a value is empty or describes the wrong subject or language. Needs verification if final HTML values are unavailable; Not applicable if the asset is not an HTML document.
References
Link to this criterionUnique summaries
Whether each page has a description that distinguishes it from others
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Page-specific summaries help readers distinguish different information pages on the same site.
- How to inspect
- Collect descriptions for main pages in the same language, flag duplicates and read each summary against the page’s distinctive content.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if pages with different content have distinguishable summaries; Needs improvement if different bodies reuse the same generic description. Needs verification if the summary inventory or body content is unavailable; Not applicable if the reviewed scope is verified to contain only one page with no comparison target.
References
Link to this criterionDuplicate titles
Whether the document contains conflicting duplicate title elements
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Duplicate title elements complicate consistent document naming and do not meet HTML’s single-element restriction.
- How to inspect
- Count title elements in the response HTML and rendered document, checking whether both a shared template and page code add titles.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if an ordinary HTML page retains one title element; Needs improvement if title elements are duplicated or a required title is missing. Needs verification if response or rendered results cannot be checked; Not applicable if the asset is not an HTML document.
References
Link to this criterionCanonical URL
Whether the canonical URL points to the actual primary page
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- Canonical annotations signal a preferred URL among duplicate or similar pages; they do not force a search service’s choice.
- How to inspect
- Check the canonical value and destination, comparing content relationships, redirects and sitemap URLs for conflicting preferred addresses.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if it opens the selected representative page and related signals agree; Needs improvement if error URLs, unrelated content or conflicting preferred URLs are found. Needs verification if the selection rationale or destination cannot be verified; Not applicable if a scoped decision records not using canonical annotations for a single nonduplicate URL.
References
Link to this criterionHeading clarity
Whether accuracy and readability take priority over length
Evidence and inspection method
- Why this matters
- A title should describe its page accurately and concisely rather than aim for a fixed character count.
- How to inspect
- Read the title with the body, checking vague wording, repeated keywords and unsupported promises, and whether a new reader can identify the subject.
- Decision rules
- Our review rule: Confirmed if the title describes the actual subject specifically and concisely; Needs improvement if vagueness, keyword repetition or promises inconsistent with the body are found. Needs verification if the body or title-review result is unavailable; Not applicable if the reviewed asset is not an HTML page.
References
Link to this criterion