Hiring a writer for your orthopedic website involves more than choosing topics and counting pages. An administrator may know which office offers a service, a surgeon may need to approve its clinical description, and the website editor may control what finally goes live. Put those decisions in the content brief before comparing proposals.
This checklist is for practice owners and administrators commissioning website copy. It helps you ask what the supplier will write, what your team must approve and what evidence closes the assignment. It is not medical review, a clinical protocol or a promise of search performance.
Ask which kind of review the quote includes
Do not assume that research, copy editing, specialist medical review and publication approval mean the same thing. Ask who performs each included task and which decisions remain with your practice. A writer’s healthcare background does not automatically establish authority to approve every orthopedic claim.
For example, OptiMedX’s published writing scope distinguishes editorial work from the clinical approval agreed for a project. That illustrates a question to ask any supplier; it does not establish what your own quote includes.
Set the brief before ordering the draft
Choose the existing page or proposed purpose first. Identify the patient question it should answer and the next step your practice wants to make clear. An article explaining a condition needs a different brief from an office page or a surgeon biography.
- Writer: drafts against the agreed audience, outline and source requirements.
- Clinical reviewer: reviews medical meaning within the expertise and responsibility your practice assigns.
- Operational approver: confirms current services, offices, clinician relationships and the intended contact route.
- Publisher: implements the approved version and checks the live result.
One person may hold several responsibilities, but record the decisions separately. If a supplier offers a reviewer, ask about their relevant qualifications and the exact review scope. Do not publish a reviewer’s name or approval that has not actually been given.
Copy this page-level approval record
Create one record for each page or agreed content unit. Keep the approved version accessible to the people responsible for publication.
- Page: current URL or proposed purpose; audience and intended next step.
- Scope: draft, rewrite, review, upload and revision work included; explicit exclusions.
- Source pack: practice-approved information and supporting references for statements requiring evidence.
- Clinical questions: wording or omissions requiring the designated reviewer’s decision.
- Office facts: services, clinician-to-location relationships and contact destination to confirm.
- Decision: approved, approved with specified changes, or held pending a named answer.
- Version: the exact copy approved, reviewer or approver, date and unresolved dependencies.
- Publication check: who compares the live page with the approved version and checks relevant links.
- Revisit trigger: the responsible owner and events that require another check.
A small example of an unresolved approval
Suppose a draft says a surgeon provides a named service at both offices. The clinical reviewer confirms the service description, but the administrator confirms it is available at only one office. Record the location correction separately, revise the affected sentence and links, and obtain the remaining approval before publishing. This is an illustrative workflow, not a finding about a client or a substitute for clinical judgment.
Do not lose approved meaning in the final edit
Agree which changes require renewed review. Altering who is suitable for care, the certainty of an outcome, a risk statement or the service offered can change meaning even if the sentence becomes shorter. A readability or SEO edit should not silently introduce that change.
Compare the published wording with the approved version, including headings, captions and snippets your supplier controls. If authorship or review information is shown, make it accurate. Google’s people-first content guidance asks publishers to make expertise and content provenance understandable; adding a name alone does not establish quality or guarantee a ranking.
Agree what closes the writing project
Acceptance might require the agreed copy, resolved review questions, approved office facts and a correct live page if uploading is included. It does not establish improved enquiries or appointments. Agree separately who monitors later performance and who acts when a clinician, service or location changes.
For the wider engagement, use our orthopedic proposal comparison worksheet and orthopedic SEO scope. If the work concerns corrections to named existing pages, request an orthopedic page-repair scope. Share public URLs and the approval problem; keep patient records and passwords out of the enquiry.
