Our editorial commitments
- Put reader safety, usefulness and clarity ahead of traffic or sales goals.
- Answer the question directly before adding detail, limitations and next steps.
- Distinguish general education from diagnosis, prescribing and individualized medical advice.
- Use Canadian spelling, healthcare context and regulatory information where relevant.
- Make material uncertainty, evidence limits and differences between people visible.
- Identify authorship, qualified review, dates, sources and commercial relationships when applicable.
- Correct meaningful errors transparently and retire content that can no longer be supported.
What this policy covers
The policy applies to educational articles, symptom and condition pages, testing and therapy guides, service descriptions, expert profiles, FAQs, product collections, buying guides, comparison content, structured data, metadata and substantial updates to those materials. Privacy, legal terms, accessibility, clinical-review requirements and product information have their own checks.
How a topic moves from idea to publication
- Topic selection begins with a real visitor question, care-navigation need, content gap or necessary product and service explanation.
- The content brief defines audience, intent, scope, safety risks, likely entities, internal links, evidence needs and what the page must not claim.
- Research uses the source hierarchy below and records sources that materially support the page.
- Drafting prioritizes direct answers, plain language, practical structure and appropriate limitations.
- Editorial review checks clarity, completeness, duplication, accessibility, links, metadata and whether statements match their sources.
- Qualified clinical review is required when content explains symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, device use, safety or other medical matters.
- Product, regulatory, privacy, legal and operational review are added when the content falls within those areas.
- Publication occurs only after the required gates are complete. A draft, schema proposal or internal approval note is not public approval.
- After publication, feedback, source changes, safety communications and performance data inform maintenance—not automatic factual conclusions.
Source hierarchy and evidence standards
The source needed depends on the claim. We generally prioritize:
Patient-facing summaries can help explain a topic but do not replace the underlying guideline, regulation or product instructions for a material claim. We avoid citing one source as if it proves more than it does. A reference list is not a substitute for linking the relevant statement to the relevant evidence.
- Canadian laws, regulators, public-health bodies and government programs for Canadian requirements, authorization, tax or coverage context;
- current clinical guidelines and statements from recognized professional organizations;
- systematic reviews, high-quality peer-reviewed research and primary studies when more specific evidence is needed;
- official manufacturer instructions, licences, safety notices and verified distributor records for product facts;
- our product records for identifiers, compatibility, inventory and approved commercial details; and
- named expert experience only when the exact commentary has been reviewed and approved for attribution.
Medical content and qualified review
Medical content must stay within an educational scope, describe uncertainty proportionately and direct urgent symptoms appropriately. It must not diagnose a reader, prescribe or change treatment, promise a cure or outcome, tell someone to stop prescribed care, or present a consumer device score as a clinical conclusion.
The reviewer must have qualifications relevant to the page. Visible reviewer information means the person reviewed that version within the stated scope; it does not create a clinician-patient relationship. Learn more in the Medical Review Policy and on our expert profiles.
Plain language, accessibility and inclusion
We aim to use familiar terms, explain necessary clinical language, organize pages for scanning and provide meaningful headings, links and image descriptions. Tables and FAQs should add structure rather than repeat surrounding prose. Content should avoid stigma, blame, alarmism and assumptions about gender, body size, disability, geography, family structure or access to care.
Women’s and men’s pathways may help readers recognize patterns but are navigation tools, not rigid diagnostic categories. Accessibility feedback is treated as editorial feedback and can trigger a correction or redesign.
Claims, uncertainty and safety language
Claims must be no stronger than their sources. We distinguish association from causation, screening from diagnosis, technical data from clinical interpretation, typical experience from guaranteed outcome, and insurance rules from medical recommendations.
Safety language should be specific enough to act on without turning every concern into an emergency. Urgent and emergency directions are reserved for situations that warrant them. Product warnings and contraindications must follow authoritative instructions rather than being rewritten as marketing copy.
Product, buying and commercial content
Product content uses verified specifications, licences, manuals, compatibility records and approved commercial information. We do not invent availability, performance, warranty, stock, pricing, reimbursement or suitability claims. Buying guides should disclose the criteria used and explain trade-offs, including reasonable alternatives.
Sponsored placement, affiliate links, manufacturer funding, free products, paid collaborations or other material relationships must be clearly labelled. Commercial relationships do not allow a sponsor, manufacturer or sales goal to override clinical, safety or editorial judgment. Products sold by Virtual Sleep Care may be linked when relevant, but that relationship should be apparent and should not turn education into a disguised recommendation.
AI-assisted editorial work
AI tools may assist with organizing research, drafting, editing, formatting, metadata, structured-data preparation, duplication checks and quality assurance. They do not replace source verification, clinical judgment, legal or privacy review, accessibility review or final human approval.
AI output is treated as unverified draft material. A human must confirm citations, links, numbers, names, credentials and claims. We do not publish invented quotations or attribute AI-generated wording to an expert without that person reviewing and approving the exact language. Sensitive personal or health information must not be entered into an AI workflow unless the use has been specifically approved under the applicable privacy and security controls.
Corrections, feedback and disagreements
Readers, experts, partners and staff may raise a factual, safety, accessibility, sourcing or disclosure concern. Reports should identify the page, the statement in question, why it may be wrong or unclear, and any supporting source. We assess the issue according to risk and evidence rather than removing criticism merely because it is unfavourable.
High-risk safety errors are escalated promptly. A material correction should update the content and date and, where useful, explain what changed. If evidence is uncertain or qualified reviewers disagree, the page should describe the uncertainty, seek additional review or remain unpublished. See Transparency and Corrections for the correction pathway.
Review frequency and update triggers
Medical pages are scheduled for review at least annually, but a calendar is only the backstop. Earlier review may be triggered by a new guideline, regulatory or safety notice, product recall, material source change, expert feedback, identified error, service change, broken critical link or evidence that visitors are misunderstanding the page.
Product and service pages are reviewed when specifications, availability, pricing, policies, compatibility or operations change. Pages that no longer serve a distinct purpose may be consolidated, redirected, archived or removed rather than kept solely to preserve traffic.
Privacy and reader submissions
Editorial feedback should not require unnecessary health information. Readers should avoid sending medical records, device serial numbers, insurance identifiers or other sensitive information through a general feedback route. Personal health questions require an appropriate care channel; emergencies require emergency services.
Policy ownership and changes
Virtual Sleep Care is responsible for this policy. Editorial, clinical, product, privacy, legal, accessibility and operational owners contribute within their areas. The effective and last-reviewed dates should be shown when the policy is approved for publication. Material policy changes are documented, and older versions may be retained internally for accountability.