Start the publication file with authorization and role
A technical site review can assess institutional identity and functioning pages; it cannot issue international health-tourism authorization. The Ministry FAQ describes the relevant authorization and its publication as prerequisites. A healthcare facility and an intermediary have different roles. An intermediary must not create the impression that it is itself a healthcare facility.
The institution verifies its document, actual service scope and current contact owner from its own records. The technical team checks the appropriate document link and readability rather than deciding legal validity. Where an intermediary participates, identify which organization provides each administrative or healthcare service. Institutional type, existing page and approving owner can be sufficient for an initial project discussion. Patient lists, medical photographs and private documents are not necessary to establish that scope. A change to authorization or provider is a trigger for review, not an automatic continuation of the previous publication approval.
Inspect country, language and configuration together
In multilingual site organization, distinguish information access from sponsored-publication conditions. Article8 of the regulation establishes a separate overseas surface, official languages other than Turkish and no domestic demand generation. Domestic social audiences cannot be selected, and automatic audience definitions must be disabled. These conditions need evidence rather than an assumed country toggle.
The technical owner verifies whether the actual configuration can meet the conditions. If an automatic option cannot be disabled, do not declare that selecting a country resolves the issue; return the open question to the authorized owner. A new market needs another language, operational and local-rule assessment. Location selection is not a perfect proof of residency. This guide cannot grant permission for a target market. Record the account, version and configuration inspected, so that subsequent changes identify the acceptance work that must be repeated.
Institution and language
Record authorized scope, approved information and language together. Writing in English does not independently fulfil every condition.
Targeting
Verify country and automatic options in practice. A technically unmet condition remains an explicit issue for the authorized owner.
Operations
Assign same-language responses, service hours and handover. Do not add coordination services the institution cannot actually provide.
FROM READING TO A NEXT STEP
Organize the administrative publication file
We can review information versions, technical settings and secure administrative handover with the authorized institutional team.
Review translation across the page, form and response
Content support can help maintain the professionally approved information version throughout a language journey. Review titles, excluded services, contact routes and organizational responsibilities as well as individual words. Someone beginning with a German explanation should not receive an unexplained Turkish-only automatic response. Translation acceptance includes the next step rather than ending at the page heading.
An authorized clinician reviews health information while an appropriate language owner reviews translation. Check that automatic translation has not silently introduced an outcome promise. Connect confirmations, cancellations and contact explanations to the same version record. Review licensed institutional identity and the applicable HealthTürkiye logo requirement. If accommodation or transport support is described, identify its actual provider. Organizational convenience does not establish clinical suitability or treatment success. When approved wording changes, update the connected page and response template alongside the publication file so that staff do not continue using an obsolete explanation.
Approve imagery and experience narratives separately
Within visual publication support, never assume patient stories, satisfaction statements or before-and-after material are automatically usable. International exceptions are conditional and preserve the general prohibition of misleading information. The Ministry document addresses consent, preview and withdrawal, and requires comparable conditions, dates and no manipulation for comparative images. This guide does not provide a patient-image advertising recipe.
If the institution reviews such material, present the source, intended use, consent record and complete publication version to its authorized owner. Do not present AI-generated imagery as a real patient outcome. Taking a file from another publication does not end your responsibility to verify it. Material with unresolved approval remains a draft. Establish which copies must be removed and from which surfaces after withdrawal or a scope change. The technical team verifies the removal without unnecessarily copying patient identity into the agency’s general project records or screenshots.
Separate administrative contact from health information
In a technical data review, establish what must never reach advertising tools. Meta’s Business Tools Terms prohibit directly or indirectly health-based data and corresponding event or audience criteria. Review condition-page URLs, form text and health-related address parameters as part of that boundary. Hashing is not permission to share prohibited information or create a sensitive audience.
Necessary contact channel, preferred language and suitable response time may belong in initial administration. Medical-document and assessment processes belong in the institution’s appropriate authorized system. The current KVKK explanation describes special health-data processing conditions. Authority to receive a record does not automatically authorize transferring it to an analytics or advertising provider. Use synthetic records in a controlled test to inspect destinations and blocked fields. This guide does not recommend inferring a condition from page visits or turning that context into a remarketing list.
Do not report administrative acceptance as a health outcome
In an administrative system integration, distinguish contact requests, suitable-language replies and the institution’s subsequent assessment. A request is not an accepted patient or completed treatment. If appointment administration is assessed, restrict it to authorized staff, actual availability and confirmation. Automation must not determine medical suitability or replace a healthcare decision.
Review unanswered records, wrong-language responses, duplicates and system failures within the authorized institution. General reporting does not require transmitting clinical detail to external tools. Each acceptance record needs an owner, evidence, open issue and review date. Country, language, authorization, third-party-tool or content changes can affect a previous assessment. Platform approval does not complete legal review. Agency technical acceptance cannot replace the institution’s publication decision either. Keeping those responsibilities explicit gives every participant the same understanding of what has been accepted and what remains for an authorized decision.
| Record | Approval owner | Review trigger |
|---|---|---|
| Authorization and role | Authorized institutional owner | Document or provider changes |
| Language and information | Language reviewer and clinician | Approved wording changes |
| Technical settings | Technical and compliance owners | Country/account/automatic options change |
| Administrative handover and data | Operations and data owners | Form, system or staffing changes |
BEFORE YOU DECIDE
Frequently asked questions
Is English content sufficient by itself?
No. Authorization, a separate publication surface, targeting conditions and approved information require assessment together. Language is not a general publication permit. Target-country conditions and actual communication capacity also need review.
Does Meta approval establish legal compliance?
No. Platform and sector rules are separate assessments requiring the institution’s authorized decision. A technical acceptance record from this guide is not legal campaign permission or a guarantee of health outcomes.
What if automatic targeting cannot be disabled?
Record the unmet condition and refer it to the authorized owner. Do not assume country selection independently satisfies every targeting requirement. Avoid declaring general suitability while that issue remains unresolved.
Should a patient list be sent to an advertising platform?
This guide does not recommend that transfer. Health-based data and criteria are subject to platform restrictions. Keeping a record in an institutional system does not authorize its advertising use; avoid sharing unnecessary medical documents with an agency.
What proves administrative acceptance?
Authorization records, approved language versions, verified configuration, appropriate data boundaries and functioning staff handover. Inspect them with controlled synthetic scenarios. Contact volume is not evidence of treatment suitability or health success.
LET’S DEFINE THE SCOPE
Organize the administrative publication file
We can review information versions, technical settings and secure administrative handover with the authorized institutional team.
Review administrative scope